suggested no business reasons for it, but they agreed with the others in condemning the demand for extending the free list to include such important manufactures as lumber, wood pulp and leather, under the claim that those products are raw materials to other industries.

In conversation opinions were freely expressed that Republican political leaders endanger the whole cause of protection when they favor the Democratic demands and that since the Massachusetts demand for early revision has been and is based upon such an extension of the free list as cannot be granted, it is of itself unwise until changed conditions in industries afford ground for it.

The Boston newspapers did not print the resolutions in full, and some of them treated the first as an attack upon Congressman Lawrence, who made the speech referred to. Apparently there is not a straight cut protection newspaper left in Boston. Public opinion is systematically and persistently misled, not wholly by editorial discussion, but by suppressing the facts and arguments which are necessary to the formation of correct conclusions. Undoubtedly this has had much to do with the making of concessions by Republican leaders.

Somebody must stand for the truth and the Home Market Club does not shrink from its duty.

A publication styled "Free Trade Broadside" commits the indiscretion of quoting from Bagehot, who remarked:

"Out of England free trade is almost everywhere unpopular. Experience shows no belief is so difficult to create and no one so easy to disturb; the protectionist creed rises like a weed in every soil." Bagehot penned this observation many years ago. If he were alive he would be compelled to record the same attitude of the world toward his favorite ism. Perhaps, however, he might revise the form of his expression, for the assertion that the protectionist creed rises like a weed is too suggestive of the fact that manufactories and other industries have risen even more rapidly than weeds in the countries where the protectionist creed prevails.-San Francisco Chronicle.

AMERICAN SHOES IN GERMANY.

One of our consuls in Germany furnishes a humorous description of the shoes sold as American in the stores of Mannheim. He says he visited ten of these, expecting to find the German product badly swamped by the output of our factories, but reached the conclusion that, while signs seemed to corroborate his assumption, the facts did not bear them out. In one of the finest

stores, kept by an Italian, he discov

ered that "the entire stock consisted of American shoes made in Milan, Italy." The proprietor defended his misrepresentation by saying that the term "American" applied to the style. In another big store, in which plenty of American shoes were offered for sale, they proved all to have been made in Germany. In only two of the stores did he find any of the genuine article, and then only in small quantities. He advanced several reasons to account for this state of affairs, the principal one of which appears to be that high-grade American shoes are too expensive for the average citizen, and the cheaper grades do not give satisfaction. We shall continue to export shoes on a large scale, but it is not likely that the Germans will become extensive customers for them for the reasons mentioned.

THE

HE Boston Herald has been reviewing the Republican "promises" in behalf of tariff revision, which it says have extended over five years with "nothing doing" thus far. Though the last Republican national platform declared that the tariff should be revised when conditions had so changed that the public interests demanded it, no definite promise was made as to the time, and the demand for revision has thus far been confined to limited sections of the country. Certain Democratic Congressmen and newspapers insist that the "changed conditions" came some time ago. We admit that the changed conditions came soon after the Dingley tariff became a lawchanges for the better. It is evident, however, that the great majority of Republican leaders and newspapers throughout the country do not believe that the time has come when the disadvantages of tariff revision will not far outweigh the advantages. In fact the most insistent demand for revision at the present time emanates from the Democratic and mugwump press, and much of the assumed and miscalled "public sentiment" in favor of tariff changes has no real existence outside of their editorial sanctums. Every concession made by timid Republicans to Democratic clamor on this question encourages the enemies of protec

tion to put forth greater efforts for its overthrow, and is a political blunder that tends to destroy party unity and efficiency.

In spite of the obvious fact that the country wants and needs a rest from tariff agitation, the Democrats seriously propose to make the tariff an issue in the election of a new Congress, and are indulging in much boastful talk about obtaining a majority in the next House, with the assistance of a small minority of Republicans who want a reduction in certain tariff schedules to serve their special interests. The Republican majority in the present House is 124, and the Democrats will have to displace sixty-three Republican members to give them a bare majority in the next House. Probably no one expects that the Republicans can retain their present great majority in Congress, but there is no reasonable ground for apprehension that they will not have a good working majority in the next House. There must be a more widespread demand for the return of the Democrats to power than is now apparent to make any other result possible. We much doubt if the Democratic leaders are confident of accomplishing a political revolution this year, and there are many conservative Democrats who would not enjoy the prospect of a Democratic House, with its incapac

ity for constructive legislation, before the next presidential campaign.

It is declared by the Boston Post, Boston Herald, and other free-trade papers that Massachusetts will get free hides and other things when we get a Democratic House and not before. The Post says: "Let the Democrats of Massachusetts next November help to change the Democratic minority into a majority and they will get that which they now vainly pray for." Commenting on the report that the Massachusetts Republican delegation was able to se cure only nine other Republican members to sign a call for a caucus on the question of tariff revision, the Post says, "What cannot be done by & Republican delegation now may be done by a Democratic delegation from Massachusetts elected in November." The Springfield Republican says: "There is one sure way to get the tariff revised," and "it is nothing more or less than voting the Democratic ticket." Of course these papers do not expect to elect more Democratic congressmen in this State than they now have by Democratic votes alone; and so they are promising the twenty thousand Republicans, more or less, who voted for Whitney and free raw materials in the last State election that if they will help to send more Democrats to Congress they will be put in the way of getting what they want. That this is in the nature of a "gold brick" game is quite apparent. It is not unlike the fake reciprocity scheme which the Democrats

adopted as their own because it would make a breach in the walls of protection and afforded a prospect of putting Democrats in office.

It is not in the power of Massachusetts Democrats to secure any tariff legislation for the especial benefit of the State in opposition to the sentiment and desires of the rest of the country. There can be no tariff for the exclusive benefit of one locality or section-it must be national in scope. All tariff acts are more or less compromises between different sections of the country; and duties are so carefully adjusted to each other that no one can be changed without the necessity of changing others. Nothing has been disclosed in the operations of the present tariff to show that any one section more than another is suffering from what the free-trade press is representing as "unjust discrimination." Probably all of the States are getting their share of tariff benefits, according to the needs of their special industries. There may be some injustice in the best tariff, but in the case of the present tariff it cannot be held as sufficient to justify the substitution of industrial and business depression for prosperity.

There is no reason whatever to suppose that any new tariff framed by a Republican Congress would be more acceptable to the free traders than the present tariff. Though the duties should be reduced in some instances to satisfy free-trade clamor, the free traders would claim that the revision downward had not gone far

enough and would demand further concessions. A new Republican tariff could not consistently be less protective than the Dingley tariff. Therefore the Democrats would still continue their pernicious agitation for "tariff reform" on free-trade lines. The most they could accomplish in this direction, if they should elect a majority of the House this year or in 1908, would be to unsettle business, halt the investment of capital in new enterprises, and render labor more uncertain of steady and remunerative employment. Probably the business depression resulting from any tariff revision now would not be as severe and widespread as in the period from 1892 to 1896, because of the stronger financial position of all the interests concerned, but it would be hardly possible to avoid an industrial upheaval of considerable magnitude. From a business standpoint, no real necessity exists for plunging the country so soon again into the uncertainty which a movement for radical reductions in tariffs invariably causes.

Again, the Herald says there can be no doubt that the election of Governor Russell three years in succession, and the increase in the Democratic representation in the House from Massachusetts in 1892 contributed not a little to the tide of popular sentiment which insisted upon a reduction of the tariff. It is claimed by some of our free traders that Massachusetts led in this illstarred movement, and it is now urged that she repeat the perform

Probably

ance the present year. any man claiming to be a Republican who can take pride in having contributed to the period of hard times forced upon the country by Cleveland's election and the Wilson tariff, and which cost the agricultural, manufacturing and mercantile interests and wage-earners altogether several billion dollars, will have no scruples about supporting the same destructive tariff program again. The Republican party has nothing to gain by compromising with this class of Republicans who have lost their ardor for an efficient and consistent protective policy, and some of whom were never genuine protectionists.

We are reminded that some disingenuous free-trade writers have sought to show that the industrial paralysis which followed the election of Cleveland in 1892 was not caused by apprehension of tariff revision but by financial evils growing out of the silver purchase law of 1890. But the actual fact is, that while the financial situation was somewhat clouded, the period of disaster did not begin until it was known that Cleveland was elected; then it was that business reverses began, contracts for supplies for new factories were cancelled, banks began to restrict accommodation to any business liable to be affected by unfavorable tariff conditions, wages began to fall, and all business confidence rapidly declined. The prostration of industry was coincident with the freetrade triumph in the election. The blight which at once settled upon

the country confirmed the prediction of Mr. Blaine made just before the election as to the result which would follow a victory for virtual free trade.

There is every reason to believe that much of the same conditions would result with the Democrats again in full possession of the government. Fortunately this danger is not imminent. The Herald regretfully admits that the Senate "is now hopelessly Republican for a few years to come," and this seems to block the Democratic game. Therefore the only object which the free traders can expect to accomplish by electing a Democratic House is, in the words of the Herald, "to give the party in power such a scare that

it will hasten to take the initiative in tariff revision." This scheme of intimidation might be regarded as extremely absurd, but for the fact that the Democrats have tried it with considerable success in recent State campaigns. However, we much mistake the temper and sentiment of the great majority of the Republican party if the Democrats are permitted to dictate and control Republican policy on this question. Neither do we believe that the majority of Republicans will surrender their convictions on protection and tariff revision to a small minority of the party, even to keep any one State under Republican control.

It is admitted that the country is prosperous with the tariff as it now exists; it might be less prosperous with a new tariff-even with one

made by the strongest friends of protection. No one has been able to formulate any plan of tariff revision that would not have a more or less detrimental effect upon the industrial situation. The Herald not long ago admitted that "any movement made toward a revision of our tariff laws, apart from the possible change or repeal of certain specific duties, could hardly fail to be attended by more or less trade depression." For the reason that it is impracticable to revise the tariff in spots without opening the whole question, even the free traders are impelled to admit that a considerable depression in business activity and prosperity could not be avoided. The Herald probably realizes that there can be no partial revision, for it remarks in a late editorial: "The leaders of the Republican party in Congress are aware that if the door of tariff revision was opened by so much as an inch, the pressure upon the party for a change-here, there and almost everywhere would be so strong that it would be irresistible." Nothing can be more certain than than that general tariff revision would hurt all business. As usual, tariff tinkers would dance while business interests paid the piper.

Probably most people have forgotten that in 1896-7 the Democratic editors were protesting against the repeal of the Wilson tariff on the ground that it would unsettle values and force a readjustment to changed conditions, creating great disturbance to trade. Now they have