tory after a short fortnight's absence, with the result that the horrible tragedy of a steady and increasing decline in the physique of the growing generation is being acted in full sight of all the people! Thus (writes Earl Grey) we are brought face to face with the terrible conclusion that unless the present tide of humanity which keeps flooding into the towns can be checked and ebbed back upon the country a slow but inevitable extinction must be our miserable fate. It is suggested that to avert this we must increase the demand for labor in the country, and the attractiveness of the country as a place of residence for workingmen, and to combine for them the advantages of both town and countrv. The profits realized by public houses, amounting to about £20,000,000 a year, might be utilized for this purpose, managing the houses on trust principles. Another idea is that the government shall purchase, by preference, from manufacturers who have their factories and workshops in the country and not in towns. I do not myself offer any opinion on the assertion made by Earl Grey that "American cities have realized that democratic city administration is a failure"! "They have," he asserts, "adopted Napoleonic principles and have intrusted the safeguarding of their collective interests to czar mayors." Inefficient attention paid to physical training of school children is a source of deterioration of physique, and reformation in this direction is being urged. But above all this is the main cause of the decline of British vigor, and it is the unprofitableness of agriculture. While it does not pay to farm, no one can be expected to continue in that industry; and thus we come back to what Earl Grey started with, viz., an import duty on corn, by means of which agriculture might be fostered, the people be induced to return to the land, and the decay of the national physique arrested. I have brought this question to the notice of your readers because it shows one of the effects which free trade has had on the United Kingdom. Political economists might have talked and argued to the end of time, but a brilliant English statesman has driven the fact home to the minds of all thinking Britons, that the decay of agriculture in this country means the inevitable extinction, by a slow but sure physical deterioration, of the people of the United Kingdom. To avert such a calamity they are being asked to sanction the imposition of a corn duty. Thus protection is necessary on the very highest grounds of national preservation. F. C. CHAPPELL. THE tendency throughout the Northwest is for farms to grow smaller. The days of bonanza farming are substantially over. With a family located on each quarter or half section as owners, and less wasteful methods-all of which more thorough cultivation is insured, conduces to the general prosperity of this section. Minneapolis Tribune. OUR SECURITY FROM WAR. [From the New York Commercial.] WHEN HEN the little band of Amer ican patriots issued the Declaration of Independence at Philadelphia in 1776 it foresaw in its wildest visions only the establishment of a modest free government for an oppressed people. That the nation it was installing would ever be a formidable "world power," and, above all, that it would ever achieve the distinction of being a world provider of food, never occurred to the most sanguine of them. Yet, within a century and a quarter of the promulgation of the "declaration," the United States of America is furnishing to the countries of Europe the greater proportion of the breadstuffs upon which their people depend for the sustenance of life. We are literally "feeding the world" with the surplus of our agricultural productions. To what extent we are accomplishing this mission can be learned by statistics regarding the importation of breadstuffs by the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Of the wheat purchased abroad by that kingdom, Canada furnished 8 per cent, Australasia 5 per cent, India + per cent, the United States 63 per cent, and all other countries 20 per cent. Of the meat that she imports 60 per cent comes from this country, and of grains other than wheat 45 per cent. She spends $675,000,000 annually for imported foodstuffs, and of this amount $300,000,000 or nearly one half-is paid to the United States. According to these figures the United States is the great provision warehouse of Great Britain, and if the facilities we furnish were taken from her, her population would be almost on the verge of starvation. What is true of Great Britain is also true, though to a less remarkable extent, perhaps, of every other large country in Europe. They are all, to a great extent, dependent on this republic for the necessities of life. If our markets were closed to them they could find no other to take their place and furnish satisfactory quantities of the foodstuffs required. It was with these facts in mind that Andrew Carnegie made the statement some time ago that the building of our magnificent navy was a waste of the people's money, because no European nation would dare to make war on us. make war on us. By doing so they would cut off their food supply and be unable to feed the army or the navy with which they planned to attack us. THE best thing for the United States, the best thing for Cuba, and unquestionably the best thing for the American political leaders is to forget Cuba for as long a time as we can. Give the Palma government a fair chance. Do not mislead the Cubans with the false idea that the Americans are waiting to gobble them up the first time they stumble in the path. Do not delude them with the belief that they are of such priceless value to this great republic that we will fly to their rescue at the first flutter of a signal of distress. Give Cuba a fair chance.-Colorado Springs Gazette. THE COST OF LIVING. [From the Colorado Springs Gazette.] O NE of the most common arguments, so called, that is being published in Democratic newspapers at the present times runs something like this: the cost of living under Republican prosperity has increased 40 per cent; the scale of wages has increased 10 per cent; the trusts get the benefit and the people as usual get left. Now admitting that the figures given are correct and it is hardly worth while to examine them on that score the argument is worthless because it fails to take into account two very important elements in the problem. In the hard times there was no great general reduction of the wage scale. Many large employers of labor did reduce wages and many workmen would have been glad to work for even less than the prevailing scale, so that possibly 10 per cent is a fair estimate of the falling off in Democratic hard times and the restoration under Republican prosperity. But the great difficulty was that for many there was no work at any price. The men who had employment were working four or five days in the week, and those who were not so fortunate were tramping or using up the reserve fund in the savings bank, or else, as was more often the case, their support became a charge upon friends or relatives who were charitable enough to help them through the hard times. Take the case of a family, for instance, in which there are four wage earners, and suppose that the wage scale is now $2.75 a day. This would be a total income for the week of $66. Suppose, too, that there are six other members of the family not wage earners, and that the total expenditures for all purposes amount to $56 per week. If it is true, as claimed, that the cost of living has increased 40 per cent, the expenditures of the same family in hard times would have been only $40 a week, but the income would have been from two members working four days in the week at wages of $2.50 a day, or a total of $20. The same family that now has a surplus of $10 a week would in Democratic hard times have a deficit of $20 a week, which would have to be made up either by decreased expenditures, by drawing on savings or in some other way. These figures are not intended to be exact, but they are sufficient for the purpose of showing the folly of the Democratic argument. Figures, however, are not needed, for certainly there is no one so foolish as to prefer hard times to good times, and no amount of Democratic casuistry is sufficient to make him do to. People do have short memories, but the last experiment in Democratic administration made an impression upon the people that will be remembered. It was just such arguments as those that are now being used that led to the election of Grover Cleveland II and the Congress that passed the Wilson bill. In spite of all the arguments the Democrats may make, in spite of all the figures they may array, and in spite of all their frenzied appeals to class prejudices and hatreds, the people will continue to prefer prosperity to hard times, and they will not commission the Democratic party to overthrow Republican protection, at least until the memory of '93 fades from their minds. prosperous for our own benefit. And the ratio of duty-free imports is increasing. In comparing the importations of January, 1902, with those of the same month in 1901 Bradstreet's points out that the increase for 1902 was a little over $10,000,000, of which over $9,500,000 were non-dutiable goods. We submit that neither the world nor any country, or island of it, not belonging to the United States, has any right to expect more from us than we are now giving. For ourselves we shall be wisest to let well enough alone. WE RECIPROCATE NOW. [San Francisco Chronicle.] Why any one should ask the people of the United States to still further increase, for the benefit of foreign countries, our free list of imported products is hard to understand. We have, probably, a much larger free list than any other nation which professes to protect home industry, and, as a matter of fact, nearly half our importations pay no duty whatever. The exact percentage of our importations which paid no duty are as follows for the past ten years: 1891, 43.35; 1892, 55.35; 1893, 53.15; 1894, 57.99; 1895, 49.62; 1896, 47.42; 1897, 49.94; 1898, 47.30; 1899, 43.07; 1900, 43.21. The figures for 1901 are not available, but are doubtless about the same. Readers will notice the "bulge" in the percentage of free imports during the years when the Democrats succeeded in getting a tariff impairing our protection, and will remember what came of it. It did not very largely increase the percentage of free imports, but it was sufficient to prostrate our industry, foreclose mortgages everywhere and drive thousands of honest men into bankruptcy. But when, under an avowedly protecive tariff, nearly one-half our total importations come in free of duty we have paid our debt of "reciprocity" to the world, if we have any. We live and let live. We desire to keep some industries IRON AND STEEL DIRECTORY. THE American Iron and Steel Association has issued a revised edition of its well-known directory of iron and steel works in the United States, which also contains a complete account of the iron and steel enterprises in Canada. Part one, occupying 151 pages, is chiefly devoted to the presentation of a full list of the consolidations and reorganizations that have taken place in the American trade during the last few years, with a full account of their capitalization, list of officers, etc. Part two, occupying 164 pages, gives a complete description of all iron and steel works in the United States that are described in part one. The arrangement is by states and districts; and there is also included a list of recently abandoned iron and steel works. Part three is devoted to the classification by states of the iron and steel works, except the blast furnaces, according to their products. Part four records the changes in officers of many of the companies which occurred and some new enterprises, etc., which were undertaken while the directory was passing through the press. This will be found an invaluable book of reference for all business men having to do with iron and steel manufacturers. The price is $10, and a copy may be obtained by enclosing check payable to the order of James M. Swank, general manager, 261 South Fourth Street, Philadelphia. |