revocably to the policy of making the United States self-contained so far as nature has made that possible. The foundation of that policy of protection to American industries can be laid only in the hearts of the American people. Unless the individual American believes in protection to American industry as he be lieves in the safety of the nation, unless he is devoted to the principle of making the United States industrially self-contained so far as possible, it will be idle to expect wise legislation at Washington. There are a few exceptional men in public life who have the courage to defy popular clamor and vote in accordance with their convictions, but the great majority of legislators keep their ears to the ground and vote in accordance with the messages thus received. It is on the opinion of the individual American that the maintenance of the policy of protection to American industry depends. It is not enough to concentrate attention on the few industries that were found to be essential or pivotal in our affairs during the war. The people must believe in the policy of protection to all industries for which the resources of the country are adapted. They will believe in it and maintain it if the policy is wisely. administered and the direct benefi ciaries of protection show by their words and acts that they recognize that protection is primarily for the nation of which they are only a part. There are signs that certain manufacturers who would be directly benefited by protection to American industries have already lost sight of the great lessons of the war. They are showing an eagerness for the importation of German knitting needles. They represent the very large number in all branches of industry who are subject to two contending forces. They find on one hand that protection against foreign competition in the goods they sell is essential to the prosperity of their industry, and on the other hand that foreign competition in the things they buy apparently increases the profits of their business. Involved in the cares and responsibilities of their own affairs, they often make the mistake of calling for protection on what they sell and a low tariff or no tariff on what they buy. This conflict between private interests and public welfare accounts for the demand made by far too many manufacturers for a high tariff on what they sell and a low tariff or no tariff on wool, dyestuffs, knitting needles, machinery and other products, raw, partly or wholly manufactured, that they must buy. The present is a good time to issue a warning against this mistake, which has long been with us. The individual manufacturer must be made to understand that protection is primarily for the country, not for him. He must be made to understand that a low tariff or no tariff on wool, knitting needles, machinery or dyestuffs means a low tariff or no tariff on wool goods, knit goods and dyed products. Protection is for all or for none. That is the course of reason and common sense leading to national and individual safety and prosperity. Never has the cause of protection to American industry faced a more critical situation than at the present time. The great excess of our exports over imports and the fact that Europe will need a huge sum measured in tens of billions of dollars to repair the devastation by the Germans make it certain that the present debt that foreign nations owe to America will be greatly increased in the next few years before the tide turns and Europe is able to begin the slow work of reducing the obligation. This situation will bring with it a pressure to export foreign goods to America in order to pay the debts of foreign nations. That pressure will be equivalent to a reduction of the United States tariff or to a bounty on foreign exports to this country. This is the situation that makes it doubly important for every protectionist to insist that the tariff shall provide adequate protection for every American industry. BENEFITS OF PROTECTION. The Manor House, Bexley, Kent. July 21, 1919. To the Editor of The Protectionist: Having read with interest the able article by Edward N. Dingley on "Lessons from English Economic History," in the Protectionist of June, 1919, I venture to send you an article written by me for the British. Empire Federation in June, 1919, as it supplements Mr. Dingley's article in some points not touched upon by him. I should have thought, however, that the economic history of the United States sufficed to convince any unprejudiced person of the evils of free trade and the benefit of protection. These have been summed up in my book, "Economic and Fiscal Facts and Fallacies," published ten years ago, from which the following is a quotation: ECONOMIC AND FISCAL FACTS. Carey, the American economist, sums up the result of Protection in the United States and Free Trade in England as follows: United States Protection, as established in 1813, 1828, 1842, gave, as that of 1861 is giving: Great demand for labour. Wages high and money cheap. ing. Public and private property great beyond all previous precedent. Growing national independence. England British Free Trade, as established in 1817, 1834, 1846, and 1857, bequeathed to its successor: Labour everywhere seeking to be employed. Wages low and money high. Public and private revenues small and decreasing. Immigration declining. Public and private bankruptcy nearly universal. Growing national dependence. The United States revised tariff of 1909 imposed, in all cases, tariffs of at least the difference in the cost of articles manufactured abroad and at home. Allowance was also made for a reasonable profit on home pro- United Kingdom is founded on a duction. gigantic error, and must lead to our ruin as a commercial nation." Sir Lyon was perfectly right. The McKinley Act was very successful in practice, beyond all anticipation, as proved by the following figures showing the progress made in the first ten years succeeding the passing of the McKinley Act of 1890: THE SOUTH FOR PROTECTION. "The movement begun by former Senator Bailey, of Texas, to form the anti-Wilson Democrats into the People's Democratic party, has created a great deal of interest, and should prove most beneficial to the State," said H. F. MacGregor, Republican national committeeman from Texas, and vice-president of the Home Market Club, in a recent interview in Washington. "Texas is almost without a bi-partisan political alignment, and therefore without any check on political extravagance. My interest in the new party is for the welfare of the State rather than political, for Texas politics is open to improvement. Had there been an active and strong opposition party in Texas, there would not now be need for State taxes. The vast public lands of Texas have been exploited without profit to the State. The recent great oil discoveries would make the people free from taxation if the State re ceived a small royalty on the products. The new party will be a success if the Bailey faction and the Ferguson adherents can be all brought together. Ferguson received 147,000 votes in the last election, and Senator Bailey still has many friends and faithful followers in Texas. But there can be no thorough house-cleaning within a party, and unless a bi-partisan alignment is set up no real good can result. The new party will have no national status and can accomplish little unless it unites with a national party, and since the leaders have repudiated the Democratic party they may join the Republican party. There is little difference between parties now, even in the South. The entire South today is for a protective tariff. Every State has some product which the people insist must be protected, and the long boasted 'solid South' may yet become as unstable politically as other sections of the country." THE SHIFTING DOLLAR. From the Chicago Tribune. The depreciating purchasing power of the dollar is familiar to every housewife, but one of its worst inequities has hardly received more than passing attention. In a stable society it is naturally the concern of provident persons to provide against the inevitable loss of earning ability incident to old age. But the declining value of the doliar has removed or greatly lessened the incentive for providence. The man who, twenty or thirty years ago, by means of abstinence and self-sacrifice, managed to save enough to insure a comfortable old age finds he has been cheated: that in fact he has hardly enough for a bare subsistence. The superficial assumption is that society is in a conspiracy to rob this man. The blame is put on profiteers, and we speak of diligence and honesty as if they were forgotten virtues. The present generation is accused of destroying the value of the dollar because it is intent upon speculation rather than production. The fallacy of this theory can be easily demonstrated by comparison of per capita production today with that of twenty or thirty years ago. It is evident, therefore, that the explanation of high prices must lie elsewhere. Most economists believe that the principal cause is the inflation of the money supply. The destruction of property incident to a great war has had its effect, but that is only incidental except in so far as it has tended to increase inflation. We used to attribute high prices. to an overproduction of gold when there seemed to be no other apparent reason. In modern days, however, there appears to be a paradox in the fact that the demand for gold is greater than the supply. The British Government has been considering a proposal to subsidize the production of gold. The paradox is more apparent than real. The great increase in paper money and the extension of credit of all kinds during the period of the war have greatly reduced the relative proportion of gold. As a recent writer on economics has expressed it, "financiers are fearful that if much more credit is added to the base of the inverted pyramid the present gold reserve which forms its apex will be too small and narrow to keep it from tottering." This writer, Mr. Roy G. Blakey, shows that since Aug. 1914, the general stock of money, which includes money held in the Government treasury, money held by Federal Reserve Banks and money in circulation, has increased from $3,786,000,000 to $7,781,000,000. But this is not the whole story. The most important items of bank credits, such as loans and discounts, overdrafts, bonds, and other securities, have increased in the same period from $20924,000,000 to $22,316,000,000. Mr. Blakey gives some practical counsel which, if it were generally adopted, would give immediate re lief. He insists that thrift-thrift on the part of every citizen-is the true. remedy for inflation. The money that is thus saved will not only tend to reduce the disproportionate amount of paper currency and bank credit now outstanding, but it will stimulate necessary and legitimate production. Our duty to save did not end with the armistice. THE COMPLEX LABOR PROBLEM Dr. Charles A. Eaton, in Leslie's Weekly. 'The labor problem is too vast, too complex, and is enmeshed too deeply in human passions to be settled offhand by any method or system, however admirable in itself. I am afraid that no one really understands the whole labor problem. Certainly it is much more than a class issue. It has steadily risen in the consciousness of mankind from economics to politics, from politics to ethics, and from ethics to a world issue involving the very safety and sanctity of governments and societies. When the workingman has achieved the highest possible wages and the shortest possible hours, and the most perfect conceivable working conditions, the real labor question is still a question of production. And production is only another name for co-operative service. Production is not the function of labor alone. It involves a necessary partnership between the mind and the muscle; manhood and machinery. A man can produce fuel by pick ing up a few rotten sticks in the forest, but when the whole world needs fuel the man must have tools and dynamite and power and leadership and learning and co-operation with other men if he is to produce to meet the demand. Production is the world's great need, and from now on production is bound to become a question of social partnership and co-operation. No victory of labor over capital or of capital over labor is of very vital value. Money and work, mind and muscle, organization and machinery are simply two sides of the same thing. They are the two chief elements in production. For one to destroy the other is as sensible as for one horse of a pair hitched to a load to kick his mate to death with the idea of thus lightening his own load. The prevailing class madness which the world war has stimulated will run its course and die down like a malignant fever. Then unless some other insanity develops to take its place as a block to progress we shall see employer and employee getting together, first and finally, for the purposes of production; and the larger unity of the big idea will gather into itself and absorb dissension, suspicion, fear and ill-will, and men will work together as friends, because they know they must or perish. THE HOUSING PROBLEM The housing problem, as the Boston Transcript wisely says, lies at the root of much of our present labor trouble. In the crowded industrial districts it is inevitable that fac |