I am a thoroughly competent man in my line, and that line is a highly important and necessary element in all modern business. My record is clean, my standing is good, my health is of the best, my mode of life is decent and my ability is undisputed, Furthermore, I am willing to work for much less than I have often received and than men of my grade are known to me to be now receiving. Yet for weeks past I have trodden the pavements of this city looking for work but without success. Here and there a brief, desultory bit has come my way, but steady employment-no! And I am still looking. It is true, as this writer asserts, that "beyond doubt the

problem of unemployment is the greatest in importance before the world to-day." It has always been the greatest of all problems. It has long been the uppermost question in the policies of enlightened nations. It is the basic consideration that underlies and governs the policy of Protection. Quoting again from the letter to the New York World:

The problem of unemployment is one that may justly command the earnest attention of the best brains-yes, and the best hearts of the most unselfish and most favorably placed among us; for no structure can be permanent whose foundations are in

secure.

My own case is a fair sample. I am daily trying my uttermost to get placed -writing letters, seeing people, answering advertisements; omitting nothing. Yet my rent is unpaid, aged people dependent upon me are in need, my pocket is nearly empty. Is there work for me in this city?

X. X. X.

But did this unemployment problem,

completely failed to show either the best brain or the best heart in their treatment of American labor. They went so far as to openly declare their purpose to be the enactment of "a competitive Tariff" that should operate to bring in larger foreign competition and break down domestic prices. But they did not break down prices or reduce the cost of living. What they did break down was domestic employment. In ten months after the FreeTrade Tariff went into effect three million American workmen had lost their jobs; and if all the facts of partial employment, of irregular employment and of no employment could be grouped together it would be proved that at this moment

A Sardonic Suggestion.

In a signed editorial in the New York American of August 24, a Democratic newspaper, but not a Free-Trade newspaper, William Randolph Hearst puts forward the following sardonic suggestion:

Just think of the glory of surviving (if we could) four years of government more visionary and less practical than that of a college professor. A minister might be able to deal with our Tariff situation in even a less efficient way than a professor has dealt with it. He might be able to give away more of our markets to foreign manufacturers while securing even less foreign markets for ourselves. He might be able to get even less advantage for our shipping and our people out of a canal built entirely with our money. He might be able to sweep our entire merchant marine form the sea, while a college professor has only been able to destroy about nine-tenths of it.

GOOD RAILROAD

EARNINGS

FOR

when the present Free-Trade Tariff was framed and enacted, command the earnest attention of the best brains and the best hearts? No, it did not. The problem was not treated on that basis. The men who framed and enacted that law and the President who signed it were not destitute either of intelligence or sympathetic feeling for their fellow men. We would not accuse them of that. What we do accuse them of, and what is undeniably true, is that in the furore of domination and control they clung to party tradition and to long-cherished theory; that in their haste to carry into effect their pet doctrine of Free-Trade they became oblivious to the problem of employment and

FREE

fully three million American men and women who must work for wages are either wholly or partially jobless.

Yes, it is true that the employment problem is of greater importance than any other problem that is before the world to-day. Also, it is true that this problem will not be safely and humanely solved until, through restored Protection, American labor is once more given the preference over foreign labor in the American market.

This would be a very suitable section for the sheep industry if it wasn't for the dogs and Democrat Tariff law.-St. Mary's (W. Va.) Leader.

TRADE

While admitting the possibility that a minister of the gospel might make a worse President than a college professor has made, we think it highly improbable. Any change would be likely to be for the better. As the doctor said when asked to cure a bad breath, "Asafoetida would improve it." And we think that almost any clergyman would be an improvement,

Clergymen are nearer than college professors are to the hearts of the people, to their joys and sorrows, their needs and longings. Many a clergyman has come out of college a Free-Trader and later on, through knowledge and experience gained from contact with humanity, has become a Protectionist. But we don't remember any case of a Free-Trade college professor who ever learned enough to

become a Protectionist.

Psychological Lunch,

If you are out of work and hungry, and in search of a Free-Trade phychological dinner, by paying 5 cents you can attend a movie showing a cabaret lunch or a festive dinner scene after the dance. Of course, you must own the 5 cents.

The Democratic "new era of hope," which superseded the Republican era of “prosperity," is getting even more hopeful with the advent of the harvest season, which always provides employment for everyone.-Bay Shore (N. Y.) Journal.

Seeing Things as They Are.

In the symposium of business views regarding the present condition of the country and the outlook for the immediate future which the New York Sun prints in its issue of August 30 the general tone is one of satisfaction and confidence. It sounds like whistling to keep one's courage up. It certainly does not sound like the expression of practical men who know the truth regarding business depression and are willing to recognize its causes and its cure. Among the score or more who contribute their testimony in the Sun's symposium there is just one exponent of big business who paints the picture as he sees it and as it actually is. Henry B. Joy, the executive head of one of the most prosperous industrial plants of its kind in the world-the Packard Motor Car Company, of Detroit-is the one man who speaks what he knows and believes, namely, that for such prosperity as has come to the country in the past year we are indebted to export orders received from the belligerent nations, and not to the uuintelligent and unwise legislation of a FreeTrade Congress and administration. Here is what Mr. Joy tells the New York Sun:

The rapid decline in business during the months prior to the outbreak of the war was the nightmare of every manufacturer and merchant. The tens and hundreds of thousands of unemployed, factories and mills running three and four days a week, the rapidly accumulating balance of trade against the United States, the failing government revenues necessitating the deficiency income tax, the entire failure of the new Tariff law, the utter prostration of business generally these things and many more are all facts in the record.

The purchases in this country of the warring nations have changed the balance of trade to upward of $20,000,000 a week in our favor.

The war also superseded the Democratic Tariff bill and put into force the most effective Protective Tariff ever in existence; we could no longer buy abroad. Whatever we required we had to buy from our own mills and factories. The British navy kept the high seas open for our outgoing trade.

So long as these conditions of commerce and Protective Tariff exist a continued improvement in business conditions will result. New industries are being of necessity established which former Tariffs did not make possible of existence here.

It is impossible to predict how soon after the cessation of the war European products will again begin to flood the country and drive Americans out of employment.

Along the same line of thought another man who is in close touch with many concerns engaged in the manufacture of war munitions, but whose name is not given, tells of the large expansion of producing capacity that has taken place and is still going on because of war export orders. He is looking into the future, when there is going to be a stoppage of war orders:

Now what about the new equipment when the war is over? What about the plants that have converted their machinery into munition producers? What about the manufacturers of metal in Canada? They are beginning to smelt over there now, something that they have always relied on us to do. What will Europe do with the vast quantities of machinery that are being shipped abroad and that will be in good condition after the war ends? Is all of this machinery sent to Europe to be scrapped? Are our own new factories to be torn down and their equipment sent to the junk heap? And here is

another thing: What of the thousands of women who have become industrial operators in Europe since the outbreak of the war?

Many of these women are going to remain in industrial life. They and the men are going to be willing to keep on working, and with the release of the fighting men the labor market will be drugged. The European manufacturers are 10t going to scrap their machinery. They will convert it to peaceful uses.

That means that we must be on our guard here against importations of cheaply produced manufactures that will tax our ingenuity to the utmost. Our own manufacturers are not going to be any more willing than those abroad to scrap their new equipment. It is a future condition that warrants serious thought. The possible effects upon this country are simply incalculable.

These are the things which American business men should be thinking about, instead of indulging in rosy dreams of a present prosperity which is largely imaginary. They should be looking toward the future, to the time when the abnormal and fictitious conditions produced by the war shall no longer exist, and when the low dike of a Free-Trade Tariff shall let in the deluge of Europe's industrial surplus and put American labor and industry out of business. The saving grace of the Sun's symposium is the clear-headed view expressed by Henry B. Joy and the unnamed contributor quoted above. All the rest goes for little when compared with their practical business sense and their ability to see things as they are and are to be.

An American Congressman in the Orient.

In this issue of the AMERICAN ECONOMIST appears the first of a series of important articles contributed by Representative R. W. Austin, of Tennessee, as the result of his close and careful observations in a four months' tour in Oriental countries. Mr. Austin's special mission was to obtain facts bearing upon the question of future competition with American labor and industry resulting from the rapid development of industrial production in countries where the price of labor runs from 10 to 20 cents a day for male adults and from 10 cents down to almost nothing for women and children. Mr. Austin's first letter is descriptive of conditions in the Hawaiian Islands, whose chief industry, sugar growing, is menaced with destruction by the free sugar provision in the Underwood Free-Trade Tariff. Subsequent letters will deal with Japan and China in turn. These letters are certain to prove interesting and valuable.

Boys, don't be fooled by figures. If 100 per cent. does not Protect your work and wages against the invasion of foreign goods, then make it 200. What you want is adequate Protection, and you want fact-producing figures.

When Free-Trade proves a failure even with a world's war to back it up, what would it do in times of peace?-Hopkinsville (Ky.) News.

Foreign Policy Not the Issue.

That the Presidential election of 1916 is going to turn on the question of supporting the domestic policy of the present Free-Trade administration, and not on any question of foreign policy raised by the European war and by the situation in Mexico, is the opinion expressed by Charles D. Hilles, chairman of the Republican National Committee. In a dispatch to the New York Herald of August 27 from Quogue, L. I., Mr. Hilles is quoted as saying:

"I don't believe the persons who are dissat isfied with President Wilson's handling of the Tariff and other domestic questions, right or wrong, are going to vote for him because they are back of him, right or wrong, on interna tional complications.

sons

"Only a relatively small percentage of per are profiting through war orders. They affect only a certain class, although the benefits may extend to others later. There is great dissatisfaction in industrial communities; at least there is not a satisfactory employment of men. While the business of the railroads has improved somewhat recently, there are still thousands more cars idle than there were two years ago.

"As long as these conditions prevail I do not believe the people of this country are going to vote confidence in the present administration, unless they feel that an adverse vote can be construed as against their own country. I don't believe that kind of issue could be drawn. I believe the President is too patriotic to permit it to be.

This seems to be the plain, practical, common-sense view of the situation and outlook. Considering the record made in the past twenty-one months of domestic Free-Trade policy, it is very certain that the foreign policy of President Wilson will not be the paramount issue in 1916.

As Seen by a Business Man.

Some important points relating to the question of creating a non-partisan permanent Tariff commission are raised in an article contributed by George R. Meyercord, a member of the Board of Managers of THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE, to the latest issue of The Manufacturers' News, of Chicago. The article is printed in full elsewhere in this issue. It proves beyond question the abil ity of Mr. Meyercord to write with knowledge and intelligence on this question. The Manufacturers' News says, editorially:

Mr. Meyercord is probably the best posted Tariff man in the Middle West.

He is con

servative, has good judgment and is a man of quick decisions and base hits, so to speak. One trouble as to suggestions regarding legislation, so far as business men are concerned, has been that those advocating changes in laws do not give the subject under consideration sufficient thought and are inclined to go off half-cocked.

The article is commended to business men, and to our readers in general, as well worthy of their serious attention.

If all Americans favored Protection to American industries as they should, the Tariff would cease to be an issue, but it will remain an issue as long as there is a party which favors European industries and opposes our own.-Marion (la.) Register.

Thomas O. Marvin in September Protectionist, George W. Perkins, with the keen foresight characteristic of our leading American business men, sees with admirable clearness that so soon as the war is over Europe's millions of men now in the army will go back into industrial life, and will find that the easiest, promptest method of building up the shattered industries of Europe will be to send us manufactured goods at prices so low that our own industries cannot compete with them.

"If this threatened condition arises, and it seems to me it is very likely to arise," says Mr. Perkins, "then our laboring men, our farmers and our business men will be up against a very serious industrial situation."

In this opinion Mr. Perkins is undoubtedly correct, and the case might well be stated even more emphatically. The natural conclusion to be drawn is that every effort possible should be exerted to unite into a strong, triumphant organization all citizens who believe in safeguarding our industries against the threatened slaught of European competition in order to insure the election of a Protectionist House, Senate and President.

Draws the Futile Inference.

on

But, instead of this practical and patriotic service, Mr. Perkins draws the futile inference that what we need is "a permanent, expert, non-partisan Tariff commission," and that having accomplished this the great boon will be won of "taking the Tariff out of politics."

It is an idle dream to think that the Tariff can be taken out of politics. If the country was all for Protection or all for Free-Trade such a result might be brought about. But with the Democratic party standing for a Tariff for revenue only, and the Republican party pledged to a Protective Tariff, how can the question be kept out of politics? Just so soon as a Democratic nominee runs for Congress he attacks the Tariff as the surest way of getting public attention. Will the fact that we have a Tariff commission stop an American manufacturer or wage earner from working against the election of a Tariff-for-revenue-only Democrat and for his Republican opponent who advocates a continuance of the Protection policy? For it must be remembered that it will be Congress, and not a commission, that will make our Tariff laws, and business men and working men will be just as insistent after a Tariff commission is appointed as they were before that a majority of Congress shall represent the business point of view.

Even a Constitutional Amendment Could Not Take the Tariff Out of Politics.

The Constitution provides that revenue

laws shall originate in the House of Representatives. Thus only by a constitutional amendment, which is extremely difficult to secure, could a commission "take the Tariff out of politics." But even then it could not keep it out, for if the Tariff schedules adopted by the commission were not satisfactory to any portion of our people those schedules would immediately become a campaign issue, and a candidate for the Presidency would be elected or defeated on the promise of upholding or upsetting the Tariff commission responsible for them. So, instead of having the Tariff in politics as a fundamental question of national policy, we would have the Tariff commission in politics, with the members of the commission scheming and intriguing to re-elect the man who would retain them in office and fighting to defeat the man who would replace them with appointees holding a different view on the Tariff. The fact is that so long as a Protective Tariff is necessary to national welfare and prosperity it will remain the most important of all political questions, whether the framing. of Tariff schedules remains, as at present, solely the prerogative of Congress or is turned over to the arbitray control of an autocratic commission.

What Kind of a Commission Would We Get?

Mr. Perkins says that "we need, and need quickly, a permanent, expert, nonpartisan Tariff commission," and "this should be given to us next winter." What kind of an "expert, non-partisan" Tariff commission would "be given to us next winter"? It might be possible for Mr. Wilson to find some able men who are non-partisan in a political sense-that is, men who are "impartially and dispassionately neutral" so far as party organization is concerned, or who are "watchfully waiting" to size up the drift of things before affiliating with any party, but he could not find able, educated and experienced men who are non-partisan so far as the Tariff is concerned. They would either be for Protection or against it, and who can doubt that the members of a Tariff commission "given to us next winter" by Woodrow Wilson, though they might be "non-partisan" so far as political alignment is concerned, would be safely and certainly "partisan" so far as the Tariff is concerned? Who can doubt that a Tariff commission "given to us next winter" by Woodrow Wilson would be selected to represent the particular Tariff views of the man who said, when he signed the Underwood-Simmons act at 9 o'clock on that fateful October evening in 1913: "I have had the accomplishment of something like this at heart ever since I was a boy"?

To Perpetuate Such an "Accomplishment." How long could the Tariff be kept out of politics if we had a Tariff commission composed of men who were determined to perpetuate such an "accomplishment" as the Underwood-Simmons law?

Would Mr. Perkins submit to it, or any other American business man? The fact that so many, including Mr. Perkins himself, are fighting that law and working for its overthrow shows that the Tariff cannot be kept out of politics so long as the leading parties of the country hold tenaciously to such conflicting opinions as to what the American Tariff policy should be.

Sugar: A Blunder and a Corner. All reports agree that strong efforts will be made in the next Congress to undo some of the follies of the last Congress. Among other follies that cry aloud for attention is the sugar Tariff. The only things which Congress succeeded in accomplishing by its free sugar program were to disturb the sugar growers of the United States and cut millions off the Federal revenue in the shape of sugar duties. It did not, as everybody who buys sugar knows, reduce the average price of that necessity. Now there are rumors of a speculative campaign aiming to control the supply of raw sugars. The consummation of such a scheme can only profit the originators if the price of refined sugar is advanced. Thus we behold dear sugar upon the table, coupled with a loss in future of tens of millions in revenues, and all for what? Nothing except the gratification of legislators who had a political campaign mapped out and put it into effect. Congressional incompetence rarely goes as far as this. No benefit to anybody in the United States on the one side, no bars against a corner and a rise in sugar on the other, and on top of all a big deficit in the United States Treasury. If free sugar meant cheap sugar something might be gained. Unfortunately there is no guarantee that it will ever result in any such thing.-Philadelphia Public Ledger.

"Porch Climbers and Robbers!" January 1, 1860, the American working people had to their credit in the banks $149,000,000. From 1860 to 1913 they increased their deposits to $8,000,000,000. Protection is robbery, did some ignoramus in economics say? And let it not be forgotten that between 1860 and 1913 there were four years of business paralysis-the four years of the Civil War. How men can be so blind as to oppose Protection to American industries and their employes we cannot understand, and yet in the "classic" language of the Tariff ripping buccaneers Protectionists are "porch climbers and robbers."-Marion (Ia.) Register.

If Free-Trade does not reduce the cost of living, then the whole bottom drops out of the Democratic Tariff argument, and that it certainly does not reduce the cost of living is proved by an investigation of the Department of Commerce.— Yonkers (N. Y.) Statesman.