INCREASED TRADE IS IN FOODSTUFFS.

Domestic Industry, as a Whole, Has
Not Shared in the Profits of
War Orders.

Correspondence AMERICAN ECONOMIST. WASHINGTON, D. C., August 12.—What is the matter with Mr. Redfield, Secretary of the Department of Commerce? In an address to the United States Chamber of Commerce, at its annual meeting on Februtry 15, he said:

I beg of you gentlemen not to be persuaded by the daily news columns of the press into the belief that our foreign trade lies entirely in what we may call, for lack of a better term, "war orders." It is not so.

Just as Mr. Redfield attacks the business men of the United States for their so-called inefficiency, so he tried to persuade the member of the United States Chamber of Commerce that the newspapers of the country were falsifying when they stated that the spotted prosperity which the administration has been talking about has been due solely to war orders.

Redfield Contradicts Himself.

statement

Nevertheless, the official issued by Mr. Redfield's own department of the Government on June 7, 1915, states frankly:

Analysis of the increase in exports for ten months shows that despite the so-called war orders, the exports of manufactures of all kinds other than foodstuffs have been less than in the similar period before the war. The normal sale of manufactures during peace were greater than those under existing war conditions. Because of this fact and of the extraordinary shrinkage of exports of crude materials, it found that the net increase in our total exports has been wholy in foodstuffs and in that item of foodstuff which covers those in crude condition and food animals.

On the import side it is noteworthy that there has been an absolute increase in the ten months of importations of foodstuffs partly or wholly manufactured. A larger part of the total shrinkage of total imports has been in the items of manufactures and particularly in that of manufactures ready for consumption.

Farmers Should Take Notice. The farmers of the country should read that paragraph of the official statement of the Department of Commerce with great

conditions as well as American business methods.

Enormous Increase of Agricultural Imports.

There is little teamwork in the administration's attempted defense of the Underwood Tariff. For instance, the Department of Agriculture, in a pamphlet written by two of its experts who investigated meat production in the Argentine and its effect upon the business in the United States, says:

Our beef surplus has vanished and our own people now require all that Our farms and ranches produce. It was not until this condi tion began to manifest itself in the United States that the enormous growth or the Arger.. tine trade began. The most striking feature of the whole subject, the one on which all can agree, is not that meat production in the Argentine has had an effect upon the industry in the United States, but that the decline in the surplus production of beef in the United States has had a most profound effect upon the industry in Argentina. The rapid increase of Our population without corresponding increase in our beef output demanded the beef that had formerly gone abroad, and this decline in our exports transferred the English demand to Argentina and gave Argentine pro ducers the opportunity to furnish England the beef which she could no longer obtain from the United States.

a

Demands Serious Consideration.

We must not, however, pass lightly over this subject. The possible effect of Argentine production on our trade in future demands serious consideration. With our markets thrown open to meat it is interesting to note that imports of beef were highest in March, 1914, when somewhat over 20,000,000 pounds came in. The total amount of refrigerated beef imported from October, 1913, to September, 1914, was nearly 140,000,000 pounds, which was more than the amount of fresh chilled beef exported by the United States in 1909, but much less than half the amount which we exported in 1901. The total amount of all meat and meat food products imported from Argentina during this period was, in round numbers, 154,000,000 pounds.

The reference to the fact that our markets have been thrown open to meat and meat products from abroad tells the whole story of the Underwood Tariff and the manner in which foreign countries have been benefited by it, with the consequent heavy loss to American manufacturers and labor.

Growing Burden of Taxation. Despite this loss to industry in the United States, the American people are compelled to pay more for the necessities of life than they have ever paid before, and this in the face of the FreeTrade theory that reduction of the Tariff meant reduction of the cost of living. And added to this higher living cost, the American people are compelled, through the inefficiency of the present Tariff to produce revenue, to bear an ever growing burden of taxation. The depleted condition of the Treasury must be remedied.

In the light of the present condition of the Treasury, in which expenditures exceed revenues at the rate of $750,000 a day, it appears that the war tax is due for a longer lease of life than December 31.

More Revenue from War Tax. Tabulation of revenue under this act for eight months ended June 30 has not been completed, but the receipts, including the month of May, amount to $44,

624,969. The receipts for the eight months' period have been, roughly $50,000,000. As the articles taxed have been consumed under economic conditions that are likely to become better instead of worse during the next year, it is presumed that during the year ending June 30, 1915, the act will produce $75,000,000 or more if extended beyond December 31.

Aside from the documentary stamp provisions of the act, the additional 50 cents a barrel imposed on beer, ale and porter has proved to be the most fruitful source of additional revenue. This tax yields almost $2,500,000 a month, the total for seven months ended with May being $15,790,759.

Special Taxes.

The special taxes on wine and cordials produced under that period $2,126,285, and the special tobacco dealers' and manufacturers' tax brought in $1,839,622. These taxes were assessed on a basis of eight months only, and under the same conditions would produce $2,750,000 of revenue during a full year.

The tax of 55 cents on grape brandy used in the fortification of wine, a tax for which Eastern wine producers made a strong stand, inasmuch as the tax is imposed largely on their California rivals, has not been a heavy revenue producer, whatever its effect on trade conditions. During seven months only $133,852 was realized from this source. This sum may be considerably augmented as a result of the provision for delayed payments of this particular tax. This is indicated by the fact that $106,013 of the whole sum collected under this provision was received in May.

The special taxes imposed on bankers, brokers, pawndealers and others netted the government $4,399,402 in seven months, and Schedule B of the war tax act, comprising taxes on perfumery, cosmetics, etc., brought in $2,634,854.

Tobacco Growers Dissatisfied. Dissatisfaction of tobacco growers with the prices obtained for their crops this season may lend support to a new demand for increased tobacco taxes. An effort to lay much heavier taxes than those finally adopted was made during the last session, and the tobacco tax finally agreed upon, which has netted the government about $2,000,000, was the result of an unwilling compromise on the part of the Senate Finance Committee. Growers assert that they have received less money for their crop and that the consumer has paid as much for tobacco as heretofore. THOMAS F. LOGAN.

In 1895, when a Democratic revenue Tariff bankrupted the National Government, President Cleveland borrowed money on bonds, which was not so painful as the stamp tax and penny ante of President Wilson.-Mt. Vernon (Ind.) Republican.

In the letters received from members of the United States Congress on the subject of a Tariff commission, which we print elsewhere in this issue, the view expressed by Senator Jones, of Washington, will be found of especial interest to Protectionists. It will be noticed that Senator Jones is inclined to favor a Tariff commission-of the right sort. But it must be a commission "empowered to make changes in the Tariff upon a Protective standard declared by Congress." That is to say, a Tariff commission in harmony with a Protectionist administration and Congress when Protectionists are in control of the executive and legislative branches of the government. would, of course, follow that when a Free-Trade administration and Congress were in control the Tariff commission would be made up of members in harmony with the policy of Free-Trade.

It

In putting forward this idea of a strictly partisan Tariff commission, empowered to make Tariff changes, Senator Jones doubtless recognizes the fact that before bringing about such a change in our present method of Tariff making an amendment to the Constitution, passed by both houses of Congress and ratified by the legislatures of two-thirds of the States of the Union, would be an indispensable preliminary. Whether such a constitutional amendment could be adopted is a question which need not now be discussed, but as to the fact that the Constitution must be amended as a prior requisite to any change in the existing system of making Tariff laws there can be no question. Section I of Article I of the Constitution reads as follows:

Section I. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section VII prescribes the manner in which Tariff legislation shall be framed and enacted, as follows:

Section VII. I. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,

[August 13, 1915.

but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills.

Until the Constitution shall have been amended so as to authorize a change of method, there is no possibility of a Tariff commission with rate-making powers. If Congress should create a Tariff commission at the next regular session, the powers of that commission would be limited to the ascertainment of facts and the making of recommendations which might or might not be concurred in by Congress.

But Senator Jones is sound and right commission at all, it should be a commisin urging that if we are to have a Tariff sion "composed of men who believe in encouraging home development and in promoting American interests by affording them ample Protection against foreign exemption." That would be precisely the kind of a Tariff commission which Germany has; a commission composed of men committed to the policy of Protecting German industry against foreign competition. That is German Protectionism. That is the kind of a Tariff which Germany has. Under a rigidly Protective Tariff Germany's industries, Germany's productive resources and Germany's wealth have made of that empire the tremendous world power that the present war has proved her to be. Under the opposite policy of Free-Trade Great Britain's prestige as a world power has so dwindled, excepting alone her navy, the United Kingdom has become a pitiful spectacle in the eyes of the civilized world. On the contrary, France, a Protectionist country, has excited the admiration of all mankind by the splendid development of her strength as a fighting nation.

Wishing to give both sides an equal show in the discussion, we are printing some expressions strongly in favor of a Tariff commission. It is perhaps well that the subject should receive a thorough airing. Better now than next year, when the efforts of all good citizens should be concentrated upon the return of adequate Protection, leaving minor details of method for later consideration,

What to Look Forward To.

Business failures in July, 1915, according to R. G. Dun & Co., reached a total of 1,739, being an increase of 328 over July, 1914, and 570 more than in July, 1913. This seems to indicate that wa export orders are not helping the general business of the country, and that in spite of war orders and the decrease of competition imports because of the war, FreeTrade depression and bankruptcy continue. The close of the war will make things worse, not better. Things will be better after the elections of 1916 and after a Protectionist Congress shall have enacted and a Protectionist President signed a Protective Tariff law. That is the thing to look forward to and to work for.

Industrial Murder.

Writing to the AMERICAN ECONOMIST from Portland, August 1, Representative C. N. Arthur, of the Third Oregon District, said:

I submit the enclosed from the Oregon Voter of this city, issue of July 17. I would like to see it copied in the AMERICAN ECONOMIST:

The shingle business in the Northwest, particularly in the State of Washington, is demoralized because of the solar plexus blow received at the hands of the Underwood Tariff bill. The facts and figures mentioned in the enclosed are reliable and unanswerable.

The article in the Oregon Voter, referred to by Representative Arthur, is as follows:

The number of mills operating in Washington has decreased from 450, using 1,600 machines, to 272, using 1,209 machines.

This does not tell the entire story, as many of the 272 mills operating are on the verge of failure, and if conditions do not improve they will go into bankruptcy.

Canadian shingle mills employ Hindus, at wages 40 per cent. below the wages paid white people this side of the boundary. A correspondent of the New York Evening Sun, signing himself Lumber

Jack," says:

Manufacturers who have been to the capital to see Mr. Redfield in an effort

to have at least some part of the Tariff put back have been very flatly turned down. "I am a FreeTrader," says Mr. Redfield. That is all the information they can get. And it is interesting to note that the ultimate consumer is paying the same prices for lumber that he paid before the Tariff was removed.

In the case of lum

ber and shingles, as with all other articles free-listed or deprived of fair Protection, the ultimate consumer pays no less than he paid under the preceding Protective Tariff. The only difference is that foreigners get the business instead of American labor and industry. The American people will know how to deal with the political party that is responsible for this monstrous injustice and wrong. The remedy is at the polls.

AN adequate Protective Tariff means American business activity.

Their First Duty.

In an address delivered at a meeting of Progressives in Albany August 6 George W. Perkins is quoted as saying:

Because of the utter lack of preparedness to meet the great modern economic conditions in industry, we are as a country as unprepared for peace as we are for war. Every thoughtful man knows that if the war were to stop to-morrow widespread industrial depression immediately would gather in this country.

When the war broke out we all know that because of the Wilson Tariff our business was undergoing depression, and thousands of men were being thrown out of work. The large war orders this country received from Europe have enabled us to put these men back to work. When the war stops this war business will stop. These workmen will again be out of work. The soldiers of Europe will go back into the factories, and we will have a large amount of Europe's gold.

to

Europe has got to get back that gold, and her easiest way to get it back will be to put her soldiers work manufacturing goods that, unfortunately under the present Wilson Tariff, she can sell to us so much cheaper than we can make them under our usual wage scale and she will get back her gold.

We are, as a party, as firmly committed as ever to our policy of social justice, but we cannot have social justice of any kind with the factories closed down. The great problems of to-day are, therefore, economic problems.

All this being true, as undoubtedly it is, what is the manifest duty of Mr. Perkins and his co-Progressives? It is not alike their duty and their interest, as citizens and as business men, to Ideal first with the great economic problems of to-day, and leave the problems of social justice for solution at a later day? Do not patriotism and common sense alike demand their co-operation with other Protectionists in the reform of the economic wrongs inflicted upon the country by the party of FreeIs it not clearly up to them exert all their strength and influence toward the election of a Protectionist Congress and administration in 1916? Surely the other problems can wait until American labor and industry have regained their rights and until American prosperity shall have been restored through the prompt enactment by a Protectionist Congress, immediately following March 4, 1917, of a Tariff law that shall be adequately Protective.

Trade?

to

"Are Peace Advocates Fools?"

In an article in the New York Evening Mail of August 2—one of a series on the subject "Are Peace Advocates Cowards?" - Roger W. Babson says, among other things:

When the peace advocates are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to eliminate the causes of war, then they will command respect, but not till then. Eastern manufacturers, who are profiting from the high Tariffs, must be willing to give up these unfair advantages before their prayer for peace will ever be heard.

This is on a par with the nonsensical theory that the Protection policy is a provocative of wars between nations and that universal peace can only come through universal Free-Trade. Taking Mr. Babson's proposition at its face value, it follows that a cause of war-or, at all events, a hindrance to peace-exists in a Tariff which enables American industrial producers to employ labor, pay wages, and turn out finished products for the American market. Conversely it must be assumed that the dawn of peace would be hastened if all the mills and factories were to close down for lack of a Tariff, leaving several millions of work people destitute of employment and wages. If Mr. Babson means anything, this is what he means when he urges that the Tariff shall be abolished as a necessary condition of the return of peace among the nations of Europe.

This proposition so bulges with absurdity that it is difficult to discuss it with any degree of patience. First of all, there is present a fact and a condition concerning which Mr. Babson is apparently ignorant. Does he not know that there is no Eastern manufacturer, or any other American manufacturer, who is "profiting from the high Tariffs?" Is the gentleman unaware of the fact that ever since October 3, 1913, nearly two years ago, all American industrial producers have been and still are operating under practically no Protective Tariff at all? Has he forgotten that the framers and enactors of the Underwood Tariff intended to and actually did so reduce the rates of duty as to eliminate Protection?

To talk about manufacturers "profiting from the high Tariffs" is, under existing circumstances, absolute rot. Such producers as are profiting at all under the present Free-Trade Tariff-and not above 10 per cent. of the whole number of them have made any profits in the last two years are those who are able to do business at a profit because of export war orders. But for these war orders, and but for the decrease of competitive importation caused by the European war, and which gave to American producers a larger share of the American market than they were having in the ten months immediately preceding the outbreak of the war, there would have been very few in

dustrial plants in this country which were operating at a profit.

But theorists who think they think seldom pay any attention to facts and realities. If they did they would have to stop theorizing In the present instance one

is tempted to alter the title to Roger W. Babson's effusions so as to make it read: "Are Peace Advocates Fools?"

"Liberalization" Can Wait.

"If the Republican party becomes sufficiently liberalized-and it may be accomplished-there would be no need of maintaining a third party." -Jacob R. Schiff, chairman of the New York County Progressive Party, as quoted in the New York Tribune of August 4.

Whaddya mean "liberalized," Mr. Schiff? Not very long ago you publicly expressed the belief that the Protection policy was productive of a too intense spirit of nationalism and that universal Free-Trade would make for universal peace. If it is that kind of liberalization you are looking for you had best progress out of the Progressive party and into the party of Free-Trade. Progressives are not Free-Traders. Their platform of 1912 was as staunchly Protectionist as was the The Republican platform of that year. one big issue in 1916 will be Protection vs. Free-Trade-nothing more, nothing less. Will the Progressives once more help to elect a Free-Trade President and Congress? We don't believe it. Cannot "liberalization" wait until after the election of a Protectionist President and Congress shall have paved the way for a return of Protection prosperity? Mr. Schiff naturally belongs in the Free-Trade party. He should go there and stay there.

Shrinkage Explained.

An indicated decrease of 100,000 barrels in the amount of beer consumed in Missouri in July is taken as showing an increase of Prohibition sentiment. But is beer the congenial Missouri beverage?-New York Evening World, August 6. Possibly there is another explanation of the heavy shrinkage in the Missouri beer market. It may be accounted for by a decrease of nickels in the pockets of Missouri's beer drinkers. FreeTrade depression and unemployment have worked dreadful havoc in the business and profits of nearly all lines of business activity. Why not in the saloon business as well? The man out of a job has to be careful about letting go of such small change as he may happen to have. Many thousands of salaried men who have been laid off because of bad business are compelled to pinch on "hard stuff" and the more expensive tipples. Viewed in this light, it is possible to regard Free-Trade as, in some sense, a blessing in disguise; but, viewed in any

other light, Free-Trade cannot be regarded as other than an unmitigated, undisguised curse.

See That Slump!

The Evening Bulletin, Philadelphia, of July 21 quotes from an interview with Herbert H. Dow, president of the Dow Chemical Co., of Midland, Mich., and wired by the Associated Press from Detroit a few words regarding the effect on American industries of a slump in prices abroad.

What effect did the Tariff have? "It saved us from bankruptcy," replied Mr. Dow. He said indigo is the most important of all dyes, and although it is a German monopoly at present, American manufacturers are developing the process. "We would spend more money on those dyes if we were sure the present price would hold," he said. "If there was some kind of a Tariff which would take effect when the price was down and not when it is steadily going up. I think we could compete on almost equal terms."

This question of the going down or slump in prices abroad, in relation to an adequate Protective Tariff, is of the most vital importance to every American industry and business interest and to every wage earner in the United States. Unfortunately, at the time of Free-Trade Tariff making it seems to command the least attention. Its enormous importance to every worker in the United States may be shown in a simple problem of arithmetic.

Let it be assumed that an article abroad costs $1, and that there is a duty on said article of 40 per cent. This brings the price to $1.40, and possibly enables the worker in America to compete with the foreign-made article of commerce and retain his employment. If the price abroad slumps to 80 cents-the duty remaining the same-then the duty is only 32 cents, which, when added to the 80 cents, brings the foreign article up to $1.12.

can

industry out of business and the worker in America out of employment. This is a question which ought to become dear to the heart of every worker in the United States, and ought to be kept m mind when an act for an adequate Tariff is to be framed.

It is not the high or advanced price paid for stockings abroad that the American worker is to bear, but the low or slumped, reduced price. Adequate steps are just as necessary when one is obliged to reach the basement as when to reach the roof is the object.

A cartoon in THE AMERICAN ECONOMIST of May 14 shows a Free-Trade holding up a rubber balloon marked "Prosperity." While a businessman, with head high up, is gazing at the balloon, the FreeTrader picks the business man's pocket. -Greenville (O.) Courier.

The Country Cannot Wait.

Senator Sterling, of South Dakota, writing in favor of the Tariff commission project, draws attention to the fact that the report of the Tariff board subsequent to the enactment of the PayneAldrich Tariff law "showed that the duty on wool provided for by a late (FreeTrade) bill was too low; that it did not equal the difference between the cost of production in the United States and in Argentina, for example." We are quite prepared to admit that the report in question did show what the Senator claims it showed. But it took the then Tariff board nearly two years to investigate and reach this conclusion.

In its efforts to obtain productive costs of manufactured articles in foreign countries the then Tariff board failed completely. The board itself acknowledge l that failure. It was unable to get any facts bearing upon cost of production in European mills and factories. European producers would not then and never will give up their trade secrets to alien investigators seeking to find reasons for a Protective Tariff against European industrial products.

we

But if it took two years to find out the cost of producing wool in other countries, how long would it take a Tariff commission to find out all other facts that are necessary for the framing of a proper Protective Tariff? Somewhere from fifteen to twenty-five years, should guess. The country does not want to wait for the slow and tedious methods of a Tariff commission. It wants restored Protection at the very earliest moment it can get it. It wants a Tariff law passed at a special session of Congress following the incoming of a Protection President and Congress on the 4th of March, 1917.

The Tariff commission project can wait. The country cannot.

To Prick the Free-Trade Bubble.

The San Francisco Chronicle, while warmly commending the 1915 college prize essay contest promoted by THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE, thinks that the next series of essays might well take up the errors and fallacies of "the dismal science of political economy" as exploited by Free-Trade doctrinaires. The Chronicle says:

There is one subject which would peculiarly lend itself to the collegiate course, because, if thoroughly discussed, it would put the professional economists who drive their inspiration from Cobden primers on their mettle. If The League would make it worth the while of students to collect and expose all the misstatements and false predictions made by recognized Free-Trade authorities there would be a great buzzing in the cloisters, and the outcome, perhaps, might be the substitution of text books which are not filled with absurdies which experience has exposed, for those now in use.

If such a subject is proposed no limitation should be placed on the quantity of space at the disposal of the student. He will need

plenty if he does his work thoroughly, for nearly every claim made for Free-Trade has been disputed by the outcome, and every accusation brought by the Manchesterites against Protection has been proved false by the event. A well worked up essay of the kind indicated would make mighty interesting reading, and prick the professional Free-Trade bubble.

The suggestion is well worthy of its distinguished source and will doubtless be carefully considered.

Difference Between 1912 and 1916.

In his letter, printed in another column, Representative Woods, of Iowa, recalls the fact that the creation of a Tariff commission was indorsed in the platform adopted by the Republican national convention of 1912. We had not forgotten that fact. Neither have we forgotten that the convention of 1912 was greatly handicapped and embarrassed by the Tariff record of the then administration. The Tariff commission idea, along with Free-Trade in farm products coming from Canada, and that celebrated speech in Winona, September 17, 1900, in which the Executive who had signed the PayneAldrich Tariff law publicly denounced some of the provisions of that lawthese were some of the embarrassing foibles and follies of the then administration with which the convention had to contend. Under normal conditions we think it quite probable that the convention might have adopted a somewhat different Tariff platform. The convention of 1916 will not be similarly embarrassed. It will be able to devote its entire thought to the getting back of a Protective Tariff.

Let Us Prepare for Peace.

A correspondent of the New York Tribune sounds the right note of national preparedness and national defense when he says:

Peace is the effect of war. So let us prepare for peace.

Instead of watching that despicable war let us pay attention to our home.

Remember the factories that started in the ammunition business did so because they were minus the wherewithal of home industries to keem them busy.

Now is the time for us to build up those industries that have enabled the warring nations to take billions of dollars yearly from us.

Boil down to the minimum our foreign dependence.

Encourage home industries with Tariff and sound "trust" laws.

war.

Satisfy American needs with American goods. Factories and farms for peace; warships for D. A. NEWMAN. WATERBURY, Conn., Aug. 4, 1915. The thought of the country is turning more and more to the object lessons that are being taught by the great war. By the time next year's elections come round the country will have fully learned these war lessons. The absolute necessity of a Protective Tariff will then have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of every intelligent mind.

THERE is no kernel in the Free-Trade nut-shell.

Points Out the Disease, but Not the Remedy.

Financial America of July 23 cites the testimony of Herbert H. Dow, president of an American chemical company, before the Federal Trade Commission relative to the practise of foreign monopoly in "dumping" its products into our markets to kill off American competition. The feature of the instance cited by Mr. Dow was that the "dumping" process by foreign interests was resorted to, not so much to stifle competition from American interests in American markets but in foreign markets. The Dow Chemical Co. was selling a certain bromide abroad. The threat was made that for every pound exported foreign interests would put two pounds into the United States. Regarded first as a "bluff," the threat soon was put into effect, with the result, the company claims, that its market here was absolutely eliminated and its foreign business injured. A practice such as this Mr. Dow claimed to be common whenever American article showed signs of getting start abroad. Financial America reaches the following conclusion:

a

an

After the war practises of this kind are to be expected on an extensive scale unless this country, in the meantime, shall have taken steps to prevent them. In either case, the United States, after the war, will find itself engaged in a struggle which will be longer and more intense than participation by it in the present armed conflict. If it fails to take steps now to prepare itself against the desperate attacks of foreign commercial interests, it will be woefully lacking in its duty.

It is too bad that the editor should stop here. He missed a fine opportunity to tell just what remedy would effect a sure cure of the dumping disease, namely, the re-enactment of a Protective Tariff that would prevent price-cutting and underselling American producers in the American market.

Business Laws Made by a Minority.

It is an interesting fact, as shown by F. C. Taylor, of St. Louis, in an article reproduced in this issue of the AMERICAN ECONOMIST, that the business laws which so seriously affected business interests last year were passed by representatives of a minority of the voters. Mr. Taylor demonstrates that 60 per cent. of the Congressional vote of the North was against the Free-Trade policies in 1910, 1912 and 1914. He declares that when a 40 per cent. minority is enabled to force an unacceptable industrial policy on a 60 per cent. majority in an industrial community it ruins confidence there. It puts business on the toboggan at once.

A table prepared by Mr. Taylor gives the percentage of people affected by the Tariff and industrial laws in the geographical sections North and West and South, showing how overwhelming was the vote against the Free-Trade policies.