1919

VOL. XXXI.

When the 61st Congress ended on March 3, 1911, Republican control of Congress was brought to a close. Vice-President Sherman had presided over the Senate and Joseph G. Cannon laid down the gavel after eight eventful years as Speaker. The 62nd Congress, from 1911 to 1913, brought Democratic control of the House by a vote of 228 to 160, but the Senate remained Republican by 51 to 40. Congress met in special session in April, 1913, with the Democrats in control of both Houses. The Democratic vote in the Senate had increased to 51 and in the House to 290, the Republican vote falling in the Senate to 44 and in the House to 127.

The 63rd

The Democrats retained control in the 64th Congress-1915 to 1917-with an increased majority in the Senate (56 to 40) and a decreased majority in the House (228 to 197). The 65th Congress met in 1917 with Democratic losses in both the Senate and House. The Democrats did not have a majority in the House but were able to organize with the aid of independent votes. The end of the 65th Congress, in March, 1919, brought also the end of Democratic control.

No. 2

Dis

The 66th Congress, called in special session on May 19, 1919, gave again to the Republicans control of both House and Senate, eight years after their control of Congress had been taken away from them. cord, dissension, wrangling brought about Republican downfall. Only unity, co-operation and party loyalty can retain Republican control. The placing of factional advantage above party solidarity will again speedily lead to defeat. It is the Republican party, representing the Republican sentiment of the nation, and not merely a Republican faction representing factional or sectional views, that has been placed in power and authority; and the rank and file of the party demand leadership broad enough and brave enough to reconcile differences, harmonize conflicting elements and suppress dissension.

In the new Speaker of the House, Hon. Frederick H. Gillett of Massachusetts, Republicans believe that they have a man equipped by experience, character and ability to fulfil the requirements of successful leadership. He is the fifth Representative from Massachusetts to be elected to this high office and he

enters into the honorable heritage of a long line of Republican Speakers, Cannon, Henderson, Reed, Keifer, Blaine, Colfax and Galusha A. Grow. Calm, judicial, firm and able, the interests of his party and the welfare of his country are safe in his hands.

The responsibilities of leadership on the floor have been placed in strong hands. Frank W. Mondell of Wyoming has won his place among the forceful men of Congress by natural gifts of a high order, by exceptional industry and by the faithful performance of his congressional duties. Joseph W. Fordney of Michigan will preside over the important Committee of Ways and Means. With a courtesy and kindliness of spirit unexcelled among his colleagues, with the judgment of ripened experience, with profound loyalty to American industries and American policies, Mr. Fordney will lead the way to a renewed Americanization of our fiscal policy and a new era of prosperity to American

industries and American labor. Massachusetts contributes in very large measure also to leadership in the Senate. Henry Cabot Lodge, the foremost American statesman, will meet the exacting requirements of Republican leadership to the full satisfaction of his party and to the honor and glory of his country.

The doors of opportunity swing wide for a high order of statesmanship and a high order of service. The country looks with hope for wise guidance and safe and sane progress. The country expects a broad and humanitarian treatment of the problems of human rights and human welfare. It demands the emancipation of business, the removal of vexatious restrictions and obnoxious taxes. It demands security under the law for life and property and the vigilant safeguarding of our national liberty and sovereignty.

To these tasks a Republican Congress should devote itself unitedly and patriotically.

and industrially by the war, thinks she sees in internationalism an opportunity to reach the "markets of the world" in the Americas. She is particularly anxious to get into the richest markets, the markets of the United States and South America. It is not surprising that Japan with her low labor cost, likewise sees in the proposed League of Nations a pos

sible peaceful conquest of American markets.

But it is surprising that any one hundred per cent American, under the plea of peace, will indorse an international program in which there is a grave possibility that a League of Nations controlled by an Executive Council (mostly aliens) shall have the power in certain cases, to direct and determine the economic policy of all members of the League.

Article XVI compels each nation to join the others in subjecting any recalcitrant state "to the severance of all trade and financial relations, the prohibition of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse." Article XXI commits all members of the League "to secure and maintain the freedom of transit for the commerce of all state members."

Does anyone doubt that this means internationalism or free trade? Does anyone doubt how this language will be interpreted by a central council controlled by members without material or moral interest in the United States?

A COMPLETE DEPARTURE.

It must now be clear to Americans that Mr. Wilson's program involves a complete departure from the fundamental idea of nationalism and an entrance upon an experiment of "world covenant" or league by means of an international treaty, the subscribers to which pledge themselves to promote the collective interests of all instead of the individual interests of any. The proposal is, in effect, an experiment in international communism, with na

tional boundaries obliterated save in name only; with national protection destroyed, and with foreign markets substituted for home markets.

It is conceived by the League propagandists that the war has transformed the world, altered human nature and thereby forced mankind to adopt a new scheme of things, discard the experiences of the past, and enter upon a new social and economic order that will bring about world peace and "Heaven on earth." Free Trade is to be the corner stone of the structure. Protection, according to these reformers, is charged with the responsibility of wars, and the "removal of economic barriers" is held aloft as the new rainbow of hope and promise.

A few pages from English economic history, and the significant events transpiring in Great Britain today, ought to furnish many profitable lessons; for history always repeats itself. What has happened once is likely to happen again from the same given facts.

.A PAGE FROM BRITISH HISTORY.

Between 1815 and 1860, Great Britain's tariff system changed from protection to free trade; from home markets to an endeavor to conquer the markets of the world. Great Britain's ambition was to be the workshop of the world, and to control the markets of the universe. Prosperity under protection turned the heads of Englishmen, and a world crusade was launched. England had humbled France, submerged her industries and outstripped her colonial ambitions. England thought the time had arrived

to clinch in the economic field what had been gained in the military field. In 1824 and 1825 began the agitation for cheap manufactured goods to control the world's markets. There were great reductions in the tariff on wools, raw silk and iron and some manufactured goods. To counteract the alarm over cheap labor, cheap food was agitated, and the anti-corn laws projected. The first corn laws of 1773 were to encourage the production of corn at home and make England independent as to her food supply. The free traders had their way, and Cobden and Bright won their battle. Robert Peel, at heart a protectionist, yielded in 1842 and capitulated in 1846. From that hour, England became dependent on other nations for her food; and in less than twenty years, she was at the mercy of other countries. Thus she was compelled to build large fleets of war and commercial ships, for economic rea

sons.

Protection in England was still further decreased in 1860, and the income tax was substituted, having been inaugurated in 1842.

THE FRUIT OF FREE TRADE. In March, 1909, the British Board of Trade published a report on the English Textile Industries. It said that the average wages of 1,171,216 employed was about $7 a week for men and about $3.75 for women. The average of all was $4.25. On railways the average wages was $6.55. In 1908, reports from five of the largest industries in England showed 227,000 unemployed, 24 per cent of the total workmen enrolled. There were 447,

000 tenement house workers. A Royal Commission on the poor laws said that "unemployment is the main cause of pauperism." Over $150,000,000 was distributed annually under the old age pensions, and these pensioners were subsisting on an average of $2.60 a week. Prosperity under protection had been changed to adversity and poverty under free trade.

In 1903 Joseph Chamberlain started his great "Tariff Reform" or "return to protection" movement. May 15, 1903, he made his first speech at Birmingham. He recited the undermining results of free trade and urged "a rearrangement of the tariff” and a "preferential tariff" to cement the British Empire under protection.

Chamberlain was in Balfour's cabi

net. The government was Conservative and Unionist. Balfour stuck to free trade. Chamberlain resigned August 18, 1903, and stumped the country for "Tariff Reform" or protection. The movement grew, and Chamberlain made his second great speech May 28, 1903. Free traders became alarmed and issued pamphlets to stem the tide. At Glasgow, Chamberlain showed the evils of free trade, and said "dumping" must stop, and that either the laws protecting workingmen must be revised, or lower wages must prevail. "Agriculture is destroyed, sugar gone, silk gone, iron threatened. How long are you going to stand it?" he said with ringing emphasis.

It was the most spectacular episode in British history; a great intellectual and physical feat. Balfour was compelled to resign Dec. 4, 1905. The

Unionists were defeated, but Chamberlain was triumphantly re-elected. Thus was laid the foundation of the movement to restore protection in Great Britain.

ENGLAND'S INDUSTRIES UNDERMINED.

From 1860 to 1914, a period of 54 years, England apparently prospered. She piled up her wealth, extended her trade and commerce to the four quarters of the globe. She was mistress of the seas. The American Civil War and the substitution of iron and steel for wood in the building of ships, gave England a tremendous advantage.

But while waxing strong as the industrial and commercial center of the world, and the source of supply of manufactured goods for a large section of the universe, she was growing weak in two important particulars; she was lowering the standard of her working population and making her toiling millions a body of anæmic revolutionists; and was also destroying her agricultural industry and placing herself at the mercy of other countries for food. In her strife for world markets under free trade she was steadily losing in national strength.

Great Britain did not fully realize this until 1914 when the great war broke out Then her perilous posi tion dawned upon her, and she faced two disasters-invasion and starvation. Her peril was like a nightmare to her statesmen and her people, and in 1917, as Haig said literally, she fought "with her back to the wall." Without the aid of protectionist United States, free trade England would have perished, and the Peace

Conference would have been another story.

The most significant event in British history since the signing of the armistice, is the change in public sentiment in England relative to the future economic policy of the British Empire. The Parliamentary election of last winter swept the free traders out, and swept the Conservatives and protectionists in. It was called a Lloyd George or coalition victory, but it was actually a Conservative-Protectionist victory. The Liberals called it a "Tory" victory; but say what they will, it was a protection victory.

English labor, so long submerged, responded to the call for soldiers. The government was compelled to take charge of prices and wages. When the war ended, the choice for the government was either a labor war, or a co-operative plan of industrial control, called “industrial democracy," revolutionary in its nature, and a complete reversal of the century-old idea of free trade and "cheap labor." The British purpose is now:

I-Protection of labor.

2-Protection of key industries.
3-Protection and promotion of ag-

riculture.

4-Preferential tariffs for the Em

pire.

5-Protection of home industries. 6-Protection and promotion of the home market instead of concentration on foreign markets.

The protection seed sown by Joseph Chamberlain from 1903 to 1905 has. blossomed, but it required a dreadful war to confirm the truth of Chamberlain's arguments.