wages could be paid if the country was flooded by cheap cottons from Japan.

Great Britain has come to the parting of the ways. For centuries she maintained a protective tariff and British industries increased and multiplied. Believing that she was. strong enough to stand alone and that she could force free trade upon the world, England in 1846 abandoned protection and hoped speedily to become the workshop of the world. But other countries refused the bait. They determined to preserve their industrial independence and persisted in enforcing protective tariffs. England saw the industries of France, the United States, Germany and Japan thrive under protection and challenge her for the markets of the world. Then came

the war, and its foremost lesson for England was the necessity of economic and industrial independence.

From now on England will revive the system of protection, the encouragement of domestic production, and seek to increase employment and maintain wages.

Here is a forceful and emphatic lesson for the United States. We grew strong and powerful under a policy of protection. We have always suffered under a system of low tariffs and now, with the great exponent of free trade abandoning that system for protection, it is high time for America to look to its laurels, to take interest in our own welfare, to safeguard our wage earners and our home market.

There is only danger ahead if we neglect this vital national problem.

LONDON, April 15, 1919.

It has always been a mystery to many people why Germany made the mistake of going to war in 1914, when by waiting another quarter of a century she could have got all she wanted by peaceful methods.

Europe was steadily drifting into total industrial dependence upon Germany. By peaceful means the Germans could have gathered such fruit as not even the most "brilliant victory" could have given them-Ger

man "peaceful penetration" was responsible for her silent victories, and like a tremendous spider's web it was encircling the world. Remember Germany's industrial power is all the work of less than 50 years; and she owes that power to unity of action— having one clear end in view and subordinating all else to its attainment. Producers' syndicates and the famous cartels helped her very much to conquer foreign markets; but one of her most formidable weapons was that of dumping.

Even these factors would have been weak and insignificant had there not been behind it all a splendid system of mind and body training. Brain and muscle all went to the building up of this huge German edifice of industry; the foundation of it all was the immense practical efficiency of German schools and colleges.

Writing on this very subject two or three years ago the late Sir Swire Smith-the best authority in Britain. -said, "At an exhibition of 1882 visited by the Britsh Royal Commission, we saw a small exhibit of electrical appliances by an electrical engineer named Schuckert, who employed 46 men at Nuremberg. In 1896 there was a splendid exhibit by the same man under the name of Schuckert and Company. We saw the works and were profoundly impressed. I had seen no such works in any country. They provided employment for 3500 men, and we were informed that the orders in hand represented 3 1-2 millions. A large proportion came from England. Schuckert and Company were able to take contracts for electric lighting installations, electric railway and tramways on a large scale in all parts of the world; to erect works, and if necessary, to undertake their entire management. And this was rendered feasible by the fact that an army of young scientists went out annually from the polytechnic schools of Germany, equipped in theory and practice for the complicated work required by this establishment.

"How is it that we English have been outranged in this great field?

The answer is that the people here have been incomparably behind the Germans in technical training, and the business has gone to those who could best do it."

"In 1906," says Sir Swire Smith, "I paid another visit to Nuremberg. Schuckert and Company had doubled their premises and were employing 8000 men, for whom they had erecto almost a new city of model dwelling. They had also entered a combine wi Siemens of Berlin, the amalgamation representing over 40,000 work-people. I asked if they now imported any tools from England? The reply was, 'Not one.' I asked, 'Have you any foremen or specialists from England?' 'Not a man.' The official who had charge of us smilingly remarked, 'We don't need to employ Englishmen now, we have no use for them, but scores of our men go to England to take leading positions in your works.""

It is rather a leap from 46 men in 1882 to 8000 in 1906 and the 8000 but a branch of a combine.

Remember too, that this is the record of only one firm which has made industrial Germany what it is. Multiply that by scores, nay, hundreds, and you will have some faint idea of this giant's progress. I am dealing now only with the advances made under her system of technical education. We have smashed her militarism, but we cannot smash her industrialism in so far as it is based on the training of the mind. The only way is to train better. future of the world is for that nation that is best equipped and strongest

The

mentally, physically, morally and spiritually, because all these go together.

A very interesting book entitled, "The Iron Circle," by G. S. Herzog, an eminent German economist, the subtitle being, "The Trade Bernhardi," has just been published in London. The writer of the book thoroughly believes in German invincibility and the subordination of all considerations to the one end of insuring German commercial and industrial supremacy. Realizing that Germany's power must depend upon her ability to force her exports upon unwilling or prejudiced customers, he advocates the establishment of the "Iron Circle" of State <controlled, State-aided and State enforced industries. The "indispensable

industries" are to be systematized, for defence, and "indispensable industries to other nations" maintained, as weapons of offence with which to force open reluctant markets. This is to be ensured through State Control of essential raw materials, which are to be furnished or withheld in accordance with the advantages to be secured for the "export industry.” Foreign markets are to be conquered by the production of the "unsurpassable article" manufactured under "protective" conditions by means of a general industrial and commercial State "guarantee fund." Where raw materials are lacking substitutes are to be sought out in State subsidized research departments.

F. C. CHAPPELL.

The Protectionist has already called attention to the importance of preserving the Monroe Doctrine as the nation's first line of protection. Debate over the proposed Covenant of League of Nations seems to have centered largely about this same Monroe Doctrine; and for that reason, The Protectionist undertakes to discuss this much-understood American doctrine or policy, especially in its direct bearing on our national policy of protection.

In 1816, at the close of the war of 1812, American duties on imports were practically doubled, first to raise

ers, prosperous during the interruption of the trade with Europe because of the war, and now alarmed lest they should be swamped by the accumulated products of English and Continental factories. President Madison and Calhoun and other Southern leaders, who wanted the United States to be commercially independent, supported it.

The growth and expansion of the United States from 1816 to 1823, under a protective tariff, was unprecedented. In his famous message to Congress of December 2, 1823, President Monroe reviewed the acquisition of new territory, industrial expansion, the increase of national

resources, vast improvement of the national system, and "its happy effect in elevating the character and in protecting the rights of the nation as well as the individuals. To what, then," he said, "do we owe these blessings? It is known to all that we derive them from the excellence of our institutions. Ought we not, then, to adopt every measure which may be necessary to perpetuate them?"

SPANISH COLONIES.

This was the happy situation of the United States in 1823. About this time, the Spanish colonies in South America began to dream of revolutionary governments, republican in character. Great Britain had, by reason of her "rule of the seas," already established a lucrative trade with these South American colonies. When Ferdinand VII was restored to the throne of Spain in 1814, he foolishly imposed upon his colonies the old rigid system, and thus fanned the flames of revolution. To save the colonies, if possible, Ferdinand appealed to the so-called Holy Alliance, composed of Russia, Austria and Prussia, for help in reconquering Spain's lost provinces. A formal conference was to be held in December, 1823, at Paris; and curious enough, the father and head of the Alliance was the Emperor of Russia.

England naturally opposed the ambitions of Spain in South America, for England was enjoying a profitable trade with that region. When, therefore, Canning, the British Foreign Secretary, was informed of the proposed meeting of the Holy Alliance in Paris, he immediately proposed an alliance between Great Britain and

the United States to prevent Spain (and that meant also Austria, Russia, Prussia, and sympathetically France) from throttling the South American Republics and imposing upon them European Bourbon chains. England's motive, however, was purely economic. She wanted business and commerce, and had little interest in the growth of republican institutions. in South America.

COURAGE OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

President Monroe was undecided at the outset. Jefferson and Madison were inclined to an alliance with England; but one man in the cabinet, John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, a sturdy New England patriot of the Washington and Hamilton type, stoutly opposed any alliance with England; and after weeks of discussion, the cabinet decided upon an independent declaration, relieving the United States from any embarrassment that might result from a formal alliance. This was directly in line with Washington's injunction in his farewell address, against permanent foreign alliances.

The so-called Monroe Doctrine (really the Adams doctrine), was supplemental to the doctrine of protection and the tariff of 1816. It was not only a declaration of the United States to all European powers to keep their political, but their economic systems, away from the Americas, from Canada to the remotest point of South America. It was a bold declaration, and Canning, the British Foreign Secretary was chagrined. He had proposed an alliance, and saw looming in the future, an independent declaration to

be applied against England as well as against the continental powers.

THE VITAL POINTS.

The vital points of the Monroe Doctrine should be read and re-read by protectionists, for they are not only corollary to the great doctrine of American protection, but are assailed by free traders and internationalists as never before. Read the mighty bulwark and the reasons for its erection:

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themsevles, we (The United States) have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments; and to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted.

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

Thus the United States, through the Monroe Doctrine, undertook to protect, and did protect, the inde

pendence of every young Republic south of her, on the Western Hemisphere. Then follows a reiteration of Washington's wise injunction as to permanent foreign alliances.

Our policy in regard to Europe,

is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers. . . . It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness. . . . It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference.

Thus the Monroe Doctrine served a double purpose; it protected not only the Republic of the United States, but it protected the Republics of Central and South America from attack of any kind, political, territorial or economic.

ACCEPTED IN EUROPE.

The pronouncement of the Monroe Doctrine was hailed with delight by the American people, and applauded by the public men and the press of England. Lord Brougham said:

I feel a pride in being connected by blood and language with the people of the United States, and hope my own country will be prevented by no mean pride, or party jealousy, from following so able and glorious an example.

Sir James Mackintosh said: "I heartily rejoice." heartily rejoice." The French official papers denounced Monroe, and the London Times defended him. The South American deputies in London were wild with joy, and South American securities rose.

According to Albert Bushnell Hart, the Monroe Doctrine is “a system or principle which is to guide the United States in her relations with other American powers, and to determine her policy in questions relative to America arising with Eu