ers would be equally detrimental to them. The farmers benefit most from a tariff that thoroughly diversifies industry, and which most fully supplies all classes of people with regular employment and good wages. Under the Dingley tariff no industry has received more substantial benefits than that of agriculture.

The passage of the immigration bill with the clause which practically excludes Japanese labor immigration, will probably be followed by a formal arrangement with the government of Japan by which the latter will withhold passports from coolies seeking to emigrate to this country. It is well known that thousands of Japanese laborers have been brought to the Pacific coast in violation of the contract labor law, and that other thousands have been smuggled in through Hawaii and Mexico. The opposition to such immigration comes not from California alone, but the sentiment against its continuance is as strong in all of the Pacific coast states. If the present solution of the problem is permanently assured, the political consequences will be wholly favorable to the Republican party; for the Democrats and labor unions will not be able to make it an issue in the campaign this year or next.

In his speech on "Lincoln day" in Baltimore, Secretary Shaw said: "There never has been a time in our history when dangerous tendencies were not discernible in the political horizon, but in my judgment there is today nothing so fraught with evil as the trend toward disloyalty to political principles. The Democratic party was

wrecked for want of adherence to principles.” In a speech at Springfield, Feb. 14, he said: "If New England is to have protection, then I insist that Florida shall have protection for her citrus fruits, Louisiana for her sugar, Texas for her cattle, Montana for her wool and Dakota for her wheat. If New England is to have free trade in the things she consumes, then let her concede free trade in the things she produces. Protection in spots and free trade in spots is the most vicious political heresy known to man."

The House Committee on Judiciary have given an opinion on the efforts of labor unionism to secure anti-in

junction legislation, where the "rights of labor" are involved. The questions considered were: Whether the United States courts have jurisdiction to protect by injunction the exercise of personal rights, as distinguished from property rights; and whether the right to carry on business is a property right entitled to protection by injunction. The committee says if the sole question is the right to labor, the right to do business, to employ and be employed, to bargain and to sell, to contract and trade, separated from the object to which they are directed, that is, if the labor or business docs not itself militate against the public good, they are personal rights which the courts have protected so long that they may be considered fixed and fundamental. Among principles laid down as established it is declared that business is a "valuable property right, entitled under the constitution to protection from unlawful interference;" that the right to carry on a lawful business without obstruction is a prop

erty right, and that attempts to injure such property and prevent the exercise of such rights may be restrained by injunction.

In the January issue of the Protectionist there was an item (taken from a New York paper) stating that 11,000 persons were imprisoned for debt. last year in England. A correspondent at North Reading, Mass., informed us that this was not true, and that not one person was imprisoned for debt in England last year. We wrote to our London correspondent concerning the matter, and he replies as follows: "I have inquired in high legal quarters, and may tell you that imprisonment for debt in England, as described by Dickens, has long been abolished; but a number of peopleand possibly debtors of small sumshave been committed to prison, not for debt exactly, but for contempt of court in not obeying the court's order to pay the debts within a given time. After a creditor has obtained a verdict in his favor, and the debtor does not pay, he takes out a judgment summons, and, after strictly proving to the judge the means of the debtor, obtains an order for payment by instalments on certain days, or in the alternative committal to prison. I may add that in practice this order is very difficult to obtain, as it must be proved that the debtor can pay but won't. Strictly speaking, a number of people were imprisoned last year because it was proved to the court's satisfaction that (1) they owed debts, and (2) that they had the means to pay them but would not."

Senator Russell A. Alger of Michigan, who died suddenly in Washing

ton, Jan. 24, was a member of the Home Market Club many years, and had been a prominent guest at two or three of its annual dinners. He was born in Lafayette, Ohio, in 1836. He served in the civil war with distinction, and was brevetted a major general in 1865. When he returned to civil life he engaged in the lumber business in which he accumulated a large fortune. He was elected governor of Michigan in 1884. From 1897 to 1899 he was secretary of war under President McKinley. A great outcry was raised as to the way he managed the department during the war with Spain. He may have made mistakes, but no one now doubts that the conditions which had grown up in the war office were chiefly responsible. The Boston Transcript well says: "The American people habitually run to extremes of praise or blame. Their unbridled enthusiasm over Dewey, and their censure of Alger in the period following the Spanish war are types of this. Neither man deserved half of what he received. Most men of ordinary equipment would have been a Dewey in Dewey's place at Manila Bay or an Alger in the war office." In 1902 General Alger was appointed United States senator to succeed Senator McMillan, deceased, and and was elected to fill that office in 1903. So it is evident that the Republicans of his state had no sympathy with the campaign of detraction waged against him in some parts of the country.

Germany's exports to the United States increased nearly $27,000,000 in value in the calendar year 1906. That fact alone should make a "trade war" with this country an absurdity from the German as well as the American point of view.— Tribune.

lected from the head tax should exceed $2,500,000, the excess above that amount shall not be added to the "immigrant fund." Out of this fund are to come such sums of money as may be necessary for the inquiry, examination, and investigation for which the bill provides. The head tax is not to be levied upon aliens who shall enter the United States after an uninterrupted residence of at least one year, immediately preceding such entrance, in the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Cuba, or the Republic of Mexico. The bill further provides a commission of inquiry to be composed of three Senators, to be appointed by the President of the Senate; three members of the House of Representatives to be appointed by the Speaker, and three persons to be appointed by the President of the United States. The President is also authorized, in the name of the government of the United States, to call, in his discretion, an international conference to assemble at such point as may be agreed upon, or to send special commissioners to any foreign country for the purpose of regulating by international agreement the emigration of aliens to the United States.

EXCLUSION AMENDMENT.

An entirely new feature was added to the bill in conference, comprehending a modified restriction of immigration. The proviso is as follows: "That whenever the President shall be satisfied that passports issued by any foreign government to its citizens to go to any country other than the United States or to any insular possession of the United States or to the Canal Zone are being used for the purpose of enabling the holders. to

come to the continental territory of the United States to the detriment of labor conditions therein, the President may refuse to permit such citizens of the country issuing such passports to enter the continental territory of the United States from such other country or from such insular possessions or from the Canal Zone."

Although the Japanese are not specifically mentioned, it is understood that under this provision the President may refuse to permit Japanese coolies holding the passports of their government for emigration to Hawaii to come to the continental territory of the United States.

The bill, as amended, was passed in the Senate after some debate. A noteworthy feature was the efforts of the Democrats to defeat the exclusion amendment, while pretending to favor a separate measure specifically excluding Japanese coolies—their object being to defeat the whole immigration measure. Senator Culberson offered such a proposition in the form of a resolution, and was supported by several Democrats and by La Follette (Republican). Senator McEnery, (Democrat) of Louisiana, refused to be a party to the scheme to embarrass the administration and hoodwink the labor leaders, but all the other Democrats voted for it, as did Mr. La Follette. The vote came on a question of sustaining the ruling of the chair. Senator Lodge made the point of order against the Culberson proposition, and the Vice-President sustained it. Senator Carmack then appealed from the decision of the chair. The chair was sustained by a vote of 45 to 24, a party vote with the exception of the votes cast by the Senators from Louisiana and Wisconsin, above named.

Then the bill was passed without a division.

The conference report was adopted in the House, Feb. 18, by a vote of 187 to IOI. The Democrats did everything in their power to defeat this action, attempting to form an alliance with the friends of steamship companies which object to the clause requiring additional air space for each immigrant on their their ships, making points of order, and finally voting to a man against the motion to lay on the table an appeal they had taken from the decision of the Speaker overruling the point of order that the objectionable clauses were improperly placed in the report by the House managers. They also tried to hoodwink the California delegation on this question, but without avail.

Advocates of an educational test offered no opposition to the enactment of the law, although that test had been stricken out. In fact, they urged the adoption of the report on the ground that the House would not be justified in preventing the peaceable settlement of the Japanese question. Mr. Gardner, of Massachusetts, leader of the advocates of the educational test, gave notice to the House that, while he had come "to bury Caesar, not to praise him," the burial was temporary, and before long Congress would be brought face to face with the necessity of adopting an educational test. Four Republicans Messrs. Fordney, of Michigan; McCall, of Massachusetts; McCarthy, of Nebraska, and Smith, of Iowa-voted against agreeing to the report, while four Democrats -Messrs. De Armond, of Missouri; Maynard, of Virginia; Moon, of Tenneesee, and Wiley, of Alabama-voted for it.

As expected, the exclusion amendment has created much dissatisfaction in Japan, though the leading newspapers of Tokio concede that the action of our government is perfectly legitimate. It is thought that Japan will calmly resign herself to the situation. In fact, the Japanese minister of foreign affairs declares that under the present treaty the United States has the undoubted right to restrict immigration from Japan, and he regards a supplementory treaty as unnecessary.

CONTRACT LABOR.

In

Under a recent decision of Secretary Straus, of the department of commerce and labor, a state may import contract labor, although the individual is prohibited from so doing. the senate debate on the provision making possible the exclusion of Japanese coolies. Senator Tillman, of South Carolina, and Senator Bacon, of Georgia, declared their belief that the amendment would make it impossible for the cotton and other manufacturers of the South to secure sufficient labor for their needs. Evidently their aim was to defeat the purpose of the existing law, allow the importation of contract labor as has been done under a state law in South Carolina. In reply to their contention, Senator Lodge denied that the provision in question discriminates. against the South, and said it applied to every state in the Union. He uncovered this fact: "The State of South Carolina appointed an agent to promote immigration to that State, as it had an unquestioned right to do. But they gave him only $2,000 a year and his expenses, and the manufacturers of the State contributed $30,000