public press which finds its profit in feeding any excitement prevailing in the community-circulation depending upon excitement is a menace of very considerable magnitude to the safety of property and even to the permanence of the institutions of the country. When we take into consideration that in no other nation in the world is labor so well remunerated as it is in the United States, and that at no time in the history of the United States has labor received such an advancing ratio of its proportion of the common resulting product of the combined efforts of capital and labor as it receives at the present time, we should naturally look for contentment and happiness among the non-capitalist class instead of strife and threats to overturn the existing social order. The wages of labor have advanced from twenty to thirty per cent. within a decade, and the products consumed by labor in the way of necessaries of life, more especially cereals and all articles of clothing, have decreased in price from twenty to fifty per cent. during the same period of time. The dissatisfaction, therefore, on the part of the laboring elements does not arise from any present grievance as compared with any prior condition, but seeks its justification in the theory now hotly advocated that all remuneration to capital is an usurpation, and that private ownership in land,

particularly in larger cities, unfairly intercepts a considerable proportion of the wages of labor, and is therefore a violation of the fiat of the Almighty and the natural rights of man. [As by the original constitution of every State of the Union, and by the amendments to the National Constitution, protection to private ownership, both of lands and of personal property, is prominent among the main purposes of those instruments, this attack from a numerous and organized body of fellow citizens, is nothing less than an assault upon the principles which lie at the very foundation of our government.] An examination of the reasons supposed to justify this attack, and the answers to them, will be found in the addenda.

The persistence in the policy of a tariff laid mainly for purposes of stimulating and rewarding manufacturing industry is to be accounted for only by the power of concentrated organized interests in few hands as against the larger interests of the many not organized, and also by a very considerable disparity of business habits between the contending forces. The protectionists are men of business in every sense of the word,—that is, they are the extensive manufacturers of the country who have achieved success in their respective industries, and they therefore carry into the cam

paign for a continuance of legislation favorable to their interests a considerable amount of accumulated capital and thoroughly well trained commercial habits. On the other hand, the revenue reformers and free traders are largely under the guidance of college professors and theoretical political economists who have no such training for the actual warfare of life, and no taste nor personal interest as spurs to action, and they are overborne by their adversaries in organization and power to influence Congress.

However, the demonstrated and demoralizing effect of a surplus in the United States Treasury and the numerous devices suggested for the distribution of that surplus, particularly those which come from the insatiable claimants for pensions for services rendered during the war of the Rebellion, together with the economic disturbances which the accumulation of funds laid up in the federal treasury produce in the money market and upon values, have persuaded a large number of our fellow citizens that such an accumulation of a surplus must hereafter be prevented, and many politicians of both political parties are, by the logic of events and force of experience, compelled to acquiesce in this view. This situation necessitates a This reduction may be

reduction of the revenue.

brought about by the adoption of either one of two courses- -a diminution of the tariff rate upon raw products and upon such manufactured articles as are consumed by the poorer people of the United States, or by an abolition of the internal revenue raised mainly from whiskey and tobacco. The protectionists, who are in favor of a reduction of the revenue so as to avoid an annual surplus, naturally favor a reduction or a complete abolition of the excise on whiskey and tobacco, which would, as they think, require leaving the tariff untouched.

The revenue reformer, on the other hand, who believes in larger and freer trade with other nations, recognizes the fact that the tax upon these luxuries, results in the largest possible returns to the treasury with the least possible injury to the consumer, and favors an abolition of duties upon raw materials and a reduction of those upon the necessaries of life which are more advantageously imported from abroad than produced at home. In all probability the current session of Congress, stimulated by the President's message, which presents the issue boldly and clearly from the revenue reformer's point of view upon this question, will begin a political controversy dividing parties upon vital political questions, and for a few years to come, at least, make political contests turn upon ques

tions of economic principles instead of upon merely personal considerations for the holding of office, which have characterized the national contests of the past decade.

Lastly, by the Interstate Commerce Act, a great progress and reform was inaugurated, as well as an entirely new departure taken in the line of governmental supervision of business affected by a public interest. It can scarcely be doubted that this step will be followed by further guardianship of general interests by Congress, in opposition to special and sinister interests which in the United States, no less than elsewhere, have so great a tendency to create imperial powers stronger than the government itself.

to

In the passage of this bill by the Congress of 1886-1887, an assertion of a long-neglected federal governmental authority was made. It is proper concede that this failure to insist upon subordinating the great railway interest of the country to federal law came from a desire to avoid over-legislation, and to let private interests take care of themselves, a position based in general upon an undeniably sound political principle in dealing with strictly private affairs. The transportation and road constructing institutions are, however, largely and preponderatingly matters of public concern; therefore