ously given temporarily. The committee should welcome such special cases.

There are several features in our tariff affecting the masses of our people which should be carefully looked into, since they subject these to the increased cost of some of the necessaries of life. I notice three charges often made against our present tariff.

The first in importance relates to illuminating oils. It is charged that Congress refused to place a duty upon these; but by some means a bill was passed which provided that upon oil from any country that taxed American oils a corresponding tax would be collected in America upon oils imported from such country. Russia then taxed American oils, and our oil producers enjoy protection from Russian oils, and the ludicrous spectacle is seen of each country protecting itself from importations of oil from the other. If all this be true, this is clearly not a case of genuine protection. It gives to each interest a monopoly of oil in its own country.

It is said, but how truly the writer does not know, that although the Russian and American companies had agreed between themselves not to invade each other's country, nevertheless, oils found their way in through sales made by these companies to other parties and that existing legislation was therefore secured by the oil companies in Russia and America. It is such and other kindred charges published throughout the country that make the tariff the object of attack as a vehicle of corruption. No duty is more imperative upon the part of the honest upholders of the principle of protection when needed than to purge the next tariff of every trace of other than open and honest legislation, clearly intended to shield the masses from unfair taxation and thus promote national prosperity. The oil-producers, like the steel-producers, of our country, need no protection from the products of other lands, and the retaliatory act should be promptly repealed.

The second charge often presented relates to the thread industry. The leading producers in Britain and America have consolidated, and it is said virtually fix prices. The present duty enables the home producer to maintain higher prices here, while its abolition would enable the continental manufacturers to export their

product to America in competition with the consolidation, which has now a monopoly, except that there is one cottonthread producer still in our country ostensibly outside of the combination. When international combinations like this appear, or when any of our manufacturers enter into international agreements, it may be found necessary in the future to provide that the Interstate Commission should have control. It is clear there must be some control or the consumer will be seriously affected. The labor in the mills of America is higher paid, and thread actually costs more per spool, I am told, than in Scotland, differing in this respect from steel rails. On the other hand, home manufactures have cheaper cotton. The thread combination needs careful scrutiny. No doubt the congressional committee will give this due attention and listen to the "other side" of the question, for there are always two sides.

Foreign cutlery is the third and last subject, often in evidence. The duties. upon this class of articles are complained of as being far too high, but I take it that imported cutlery is used exclusively by the rich. The tariff committee should maintain present high duties upon the extra fine and costly ware, but fix much lower duties upon the ordinary grades used by the masses, just as the present tariff admits sewing and darning-needles free, although other kinds are taxed. There seems no reason, however, why steel for cutlery should not be purchased cheaper in our country than abroad, nor why our home manufacturers should not supply our home demands for cutlery.

The Republican party has nursed home industries, supported, however, as we have seen, by an element in the Democratic party which we sober protectionists may be excused for considering the wiser element of that party. Hence the tariff has become a national, not a party, issue.

That the value of our manufactures in 1905, $16,866,706,985 (£3.373,000,000), exceeds those of our closest competitor, Britain, three times over, and that our exports of these in 1906 was $686,000,000, and of crude materials for use in manufacturing $510,000,000, is ample vindication of the protective policy of the past.

In our day a different duty devolves upon our party and its Democratic pro

tectionist allies. The infant we have nursed approaches the day when we should be weaned from tariff milk and fed upon the stronger food of free competition. It needs little, if any more nursing, but the change should not be made abruptly. It is better to err upon the safe side, if we err at all; but he is the best of protection ists who corrects all faults as they are revealed and positively declines to subject the nation to protection in any branch where it is not clearly needed, affording protection always with the resolve that it shall be temporary. A class of excellent citizens has arisen who really see in the tariff one of the chief causes of national demoralization; not a few consider it should be the leading issue in a Presidential campaign. The writer has personal friends on both sides-those who see in it the chief source of political evil, and those who think it the country's salvation. For neither view is there sound foundation to-day, for protection is no longer the vital issue it was; but the first class will have something to rest their contentions upon, however, if there be continued upon the statute-books duties and provisions manifestly out of date. All such and everything of a dubious character in our tariff legislation, our party, in the forthcoming revision as the legitimate protection of the true protective policy, should boldly sweep away.

In conclusion, a "tariff for protection," which was the issue forty years ago, should now give place to a "tariff for revenue," and therefore the strict maintenance of the present duties upon foreign luxuries paid by the rich. The present tariff rightfully exempts the masses of the people from almost all national taxation, because they have not "the ability to pay," as required by Adam Smith, the greatest economic authority.

The writer, having often been classed with the "robber tariff barons," may probably be proclaimed as a convert to new views since he retired from manufacturing, but his associates know better, and many a foreign manufacturer could tell of the prophecy with which he has so often startled them; namely, that in a short time America would become the leading manufacturer and foremost apostle of free trade, while their own countries would be discussing whether or not to put up the

barriers. Britain to-day is seriously considering this very question.

The writer has not changed one iota since he first formed a clear and definite view in regard to protection. For new countries possessed of natural but undeveloped resources it is the only policy available, hence we see Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all adopting it, even against their motherland, to whom they are indebted for protection from enemies, a seemingly most ungrateful return, could they not plead that it is indispensable for the development of their own re

sources.

The question assumes another form when old and fully developed countries like Britain, after having fully tested their capacity to produce any article in competition with other lands, are considering whether to handicap outside competition. This is not a case of temporary protection through duties upon competing imports, but one which opens the question whether it is economically best to use the domestic product even at greater cost. The reply seems to be: If it involve the loss of a home supply of an article essential for the national safety, yes; if not, no. This is also true Adam Smith doctrine. Each case must be judged on its merits from that point of view.

There is no occasion for haste or for any revolutionary step in coming tariff legislation. It is better to go a little too slow than a little too fast. In the writer's opinion, the revision of the tariff could today safely and advantageously be made a radical one upon the lines suggested; but if Congress, in deference to the timid manufacturer, "whom we have always with us," thinks it prudent not to disturb his dreams unduly, and only halves present duties upon some articles, and abolishes them entirely upon others- always provided it guards zealously the present duties upon the luxuries of the rich for revenue, the writer will be thankful and philosophic as usual, because one step in the right direction will have been taken and he knows the final step must come before long, the sooner the better.

Just as the Republic has won supremacy in steel, and can to-day, even during this temporary world-wide depression, send it profitably to every free market in the world in successful competition with all

other manufacturers, so is she to win this proud position in one field of industry after another, her enormous standardized home market being one of the chief elements of her conquering power. Many foreign luxuries will still be imported, but these should yield revenue paid by the rich

consumer.

The writer is confident that this prophecy will soon be fulfilled, for nothing can keep the Republic from speedily dwarfing all other nations industrially, if she only frowns upon great navies and increased armies and continues to tread the paths of peace, following the truly American policy of the fathers.

I

DREAMED a Voice, as one Godauthorized,

Cried loudly through the world, "Disarm! disarm!”

And there was consternation in the camps, And men who strutted under braid and lace Beat on their medaled breasts, and wailed "Undone!"

The word was echoed from a thousand hills;

And shop and mill and factory and forge, Where throve the awful industries of death, Hushed into silence. Scrawled upon the doors,

The passer read, "Peace bids our children starve.'

But foolish women clasped their little sons And wept for joy, not reasoning like men.

Again the Voice commanded. "Now go forth,

And build a world, for progress and for peace.

This work has waited since the earth was shaped ;

But men were fighting, and they could not toil.

The needs of life outnumber needs of death. Leave death to God. Go forth, I say, and build."

And then a sudden, comprehensive joy Shone in the eyes of men. And one who thought

Only of conquest and of victories

Woke from his gloomy reverie and called: "Aye, come and build. Ichallenge all to try. And I will make a world more beautiful Than Eden was before the serpent entered."

LXXVII