pared with the domestic market and American manufacturers would be supremely foolish to abandon the latter in their search for the former. Their "The differences between the two great parties" says the National Republican, and it is well said, “are fundamental. Never before in this history were they more antagonistic at every point of contact. policies are only phases of fundamentally opposite theories of government. The one stands for representative republicanism; the other for European pure democracy. The one is strongly nationalistic; the other is definitely internationalistic. The one stands for American individualism; the other stands for European state socialism." In the April election in Michigan, which was a full one of both men and women, the record was Republican, 506,342; Democratic, 221,831. Never, it is said in the party's history has there been anything approximating the victory achieved at a time when Mr. Wilson's League of Nations was much in the public mind. On May 6, Baltimore voters elected William F. Broening, Republican, mayor, and Peter E. Tome, Republican, comptroller of the city, the former by a plurality of 9500. These results are straws which show which way the wind is blowing. Mr. Redfield, it has been publicly stated, says that the American dyestuffs industry does not need any further assistance. Mr. Redfield says so many things that it is diffi cult to follow him. We are inclined to believe that the American people do not intend to put in jeopardy this key industry essential to our safety as a nation, unless they have become more internationalized than they have yet indicated. The Tariff Commission has suggested some forty odd changes in the ill drawn. law showing that the Commission. does not take the position assumed by the distinguished Secretary. In his address to Congress on Jan. 8, 1918, President Wilson gave utterance to the astounding statement that the Bolshevist government of Russia as represented at the Brest Litovsk conference "must challenge the admiration of every friend of mankind." The Lenine-Trotsky group of communists care not a rap for the principle of nationality. Nor do the internationalists who so ardently support Mr. Wilson in his effort to compel the United States, as he said in his New York speech just before returning to France "to make the supreme sacrifice of joining our fortunes with the fortunes of men everywhere." Is the time at hand to join with Trotsky and Lenine and sink all love for and devotion to the land which shelters us and gives us protection and government? Previous to the annexation of the Philippines by the United States. their total trade averaged $35,000,000 per annum for a decade. It is now approximately seven times greater than in the period immediately before their occupation by the United States twenty years ago. And during that time the volume of trade between the Islands and this country has increased thirty-five fold. Prior to the control of the United States the value of the exports was about $20,000,000 yearly. In 1918 the value of the exports was $136,000,000. The imports in the former period were about $16,000,000 per annum. In 1918 their value was approximately $100,000,000. Most of the exports, which increased. about 600 per cent in the twenty years, are accounted for by the shipments to the United States. In 1918 this country took $86,000,000 worth of their surplus products as against $4,000,000 prior to annexation, while their imports from the United States rose in the same period from less than $500,000 to $53,000,000 in 1918. And now even the Secretary of Commerce, Hon. William C. Redfield, says that, side by side with the investment of American capital abroad in the development of the utilities of civilization in lands that are without them, there "should go a collateral movement which should have for its purpose the development of American resources and the making of our country as far as possible economically independent of the world." That does not square with the sentiments of a free trader which require buying in the cheapest markets irrespective of its effect upon domestic industry. An ultra protectionist could ask but little more than that our country should be "as far as possible economically independent of the world." This modification of oft repeated "con victions" may indicate an attempt on the Administration's part to shift the Democratic party's time honored position on the tariff question, attribute it to the war, and discard the tariff for revenue doctrine. It would be no more surprising than many about-faces executed by Mr. Wilson with dexterity and without apparent loss of prestige. Dr. S. Herzog, one of those German doctors of philosophy who supported the monarchy on all occasions, has laid out a fine program for German trade domination after the peace is signed. Though the war was lost on the battlefield he expects that it will yet be won, if his plans are realized. For business reasons he believes an enemy will temporarily forget his hatred of Germany. "Quality and price combined are two factors," he says, "which in short time will overcome all opposition, even of a characteristic nature." Will the people of this country sink so low as to permit the trade schemes of the imperialistic Germans to lure them to reject domestic manufactures and purchase those made in Germany? Unless prompt and effective steps are taken to defeat this German scheme, our war efforts will have been in vain and our victories will be turned into lamentable and lasting defeats. We have it in our power to checkmate this undisguised attack. All that is needed is proper legislation and an unalterable decision of the people not to be cheated out of the fruits of their victory by the machinations of German traders. SOCIALISM AND DEMOCRACY. By Alfred C. Lane, Professor of Geology, Tufts College. Each of the words, socialism and democracy, is a broad and general term, the meaning of which is vague in the minds of many, and, if one should collect all the meanings they would also widely differ. Briefly, then, what do we mean and what have others meant by socialism? There are very broad definitions like that in the Encyclopedia Brittanica: "That policy which aims at securing by the action of the central democratic authority a better distribution, and in due subordination there unto a better production of wealth than now prevails." In such a broad sense we might all be socialists. It was in some such sense no doubt that the aristocrat, Sir Vernon Harcourt of England, said, "We are all socialists now." Such a definition is not so far from that of the Standard Dictionary: “A state of society based on public or collective ownership of the main instruments of wealth production and on democratic management of the industries by the community for the benefit of its members." Both of these definitions emphasize democracy as essential to socialism. And so does Upton Sinclair in his definition in the October number of his magazine: "Social ownership and democratic control of the means of production." Through these definitions there runs the democratic idea. But the question remains, what is Democracy? Government by the people, or Demos? Yes, but who are the people that are to control the means of production? Is it the democracy of the workmen who use them in production (the producer), or of those who absorb the production (the consumer)? Is it to be the country or the state or the nation or the internation? For These questions remain unanswered, and these are the questions which now divide socialists. we notice there is a broader and a narrower use of the term socialism as there is of the word temperance. And as a lady would hardly be admitted into the W. C. T. U. as a temperance woman who declared herself to be strictly temperance because she believed in drinking only beer and not more than three glasses, so I should not think of applying for admission to any socialist party because I look for and expect a better production and distribution of wealth and think that a central democratic authority may help or hinder. As a matter of fact, while I have very much more often been invited to address socialistically inclined audiences, than an audience of the cultivation, wealth, and social standing of the present, they never count me as one of themselves. I have had hot discussions with them. I am, however, proud of the fact that I have not been held by them to have misrepresented the socialist position, and I have got along rather well by avoiding abuse, and assuming that, like myself, they merely wanted the facts. |