sell below cost," is fundamentally different and its discussion is impossible without some general convictions regarding a science of trade-the validity of the proposition depends upon the theory of business of which it is a law or rule of conduct.

II

Again, "A man will buy where he can buy the cheapest and sell where he can sell the dearest," is simply a statement of a natural tendency when individuals are free to do as they please; it is one of the natural conditions that a science of trade must take into consideration, but in itself it amounts to no more than the statement, a man will eat when hungry.

A philosophy of living must start out with the assumptions that men will drink when thirsty and eat when hungry, just as they will do a thousand other things if left to themselves the philosophy of right living lies in ascertaining those rules of conduct which should control natural impulses and by preventing men from drinking whatever they please whenever they are thirsty and eating as much as they please whenever they are hungry, make better men of them.

In the same way the philosophy of trade when written will seek the principles that underlie commercial conduct and, finding them, develop laws and rules of conduct, the observance of which will make men better manufacturers and merchants.

The attempts of political economy in this direction are fitful and feeble; it is a "dismal science" because for the most part it contents itself with observing facts and drawing therefrom generalizations which it calls "laws" but which are still no more than facts.

When the academic political economist finds that men. if left to themselves, tend to buy where they can buy the cheapest, and sell where they can sell the dearest, he promptly elevates the natural tendency to the place and authority of a law, and an entire school of economists proclaims the irrelevant proposition that this "law" must not be interfered with.

Whether a man should be permitted to buy where he can buy the cheapest and sell where he can sell the dearest is a question which involves both a science and a philosophy of trade.

The mere fact that nearly every one will respond, "Why, of course he should," does not alter the truth that the question calls for some systematized conceptions, otherwise how is it possible to answer so positively in the affirmative?

When we discuss the rights, ethical and legal, of the individual as an individual, as against society as a whole, we are on ground every square inch of which has been trodden smooth, but when we discuss the economic and practical rights of the individual in trade, as against competitors and the public, we are in territory where little systematic work has been done and notions are hopelessly confused and contradictory.

Conditions in the United States are especially interesting in this connection.

Generally speaking, the people of this country in commercial intercourse among themselves are firmly committed to the proposition that the life of trade depends upon the freedom of each man to buy where he can buy the cheapest and sell where he can sell the dearest. The theory has the force of an obsession; laws are framed to support it and men are even prevented from contracting away the precious right.

The theory of anti-trust legislation is that trusts, by controlling competition and restraining trade, interfere with this sacred right of the individual to buy and sell wherever he pleases.

But if a merchant in Detroit crosses the river to buy cheaper woolens in Canada he finds this "fundamental maxim of trade" shattered at the border.

In its domestic commerce the United States threatens to imprison men who restrain the individual's liberty to buy where he can buy the cheapest; in its foreign commerce it threatens to imprison a man if he tries to exercise the right.

A man's philosophy of trade must be narrow indeed if he can so much as attempt to justify the proposition that trade must flow freely along one side of a business street, but not across the street because an invisible geographical line runs through the center of the street marking the borders of Mexico and Arizona.1

The man who succeeds in adjusting his philosophy of commerce to this political condition, wakes up some fine morning to find that the geographical line has moved or disappeared, that trade flows freely where it was obstructed before-what becomes of his philosophy? Like the geographical line, it moves or disappears; he is obliged to confess that his so-called philosophy was nothing more than a theory of political expediency or, more likely, simply selfish considerations framed in high-sounding, pseudopatriotic phrases.

It is not intended here to argue for or against the doctrine of protection, but only to point out the fact that in domestic commerce free trade is guaranteed by constitutional provision and a variety of laws, while in foreign commerce it is prohibited in all but a few articles, and

The line dividing Mexico from this country runs through the center of the business street of Nogales, Arizona. The stores on one side are Mexican, those on the other American. Custom officers are stationed on each side of the line to see that no thrifty housewife passes with a paper of pins.

forbidden not for the sake of revenue, but deliberately for the avowed purpose of preventing men from buying where they can buy the cheapest.

III

The brief story of an industry will suffice to illustrate the argument.

"The legislation for the establishment of the tin-plate industry rests upon three ideas: first, that seventy millions of people should not depend upon Welsh works for tin plate; second, that the foreign tin plate is poorly made and does not meet our particular wants; third, that the country needs a new industry in which more labor can be employed. In these three statements we have a blending of the commercial, the economic, and the political." 1

It will scarcely be urged that these "arguments" are based upon any philosophy of commerce, either profound or superficial; they sound, rather, like the reasoning of men with "axes to grind," and so they were, for "behind the scenes another class, the men who owned supposed tin mines, endeavored to secure the attention of Congress. They were anxious that the tin-plate industry should be encouraged, provided that block tin was put on the tariff list."

"Prior to 1890 no tin plate had been made in this country. The McKinley tariff of that year, with its high duties on plate and pig-tin, was the beginning of the industry. The growth of the industry was due to many favoring conditions. Capital was attracted, and by 1898 there were 'forty-one plants operating 235 mills.' 2

"The excessive competition of the many tin-plate plants established under the hot-house influences of the tariff of 1890, in company with the rising prices of materials, has brought about the formation of a combination known as the American Tin-Plate Company."

"It will be seen from what has been already said that the tin-plate industry was in far from a healthy condition. Everything pointed to demoralization. It was very natural * that, under these conditions, repeated attempts should be made to form a combination."

The combination was formed and proceeded to reorganize the business. The organ of the trade said in 1899:1 "At the present time a number of the plants have been closed down. Among them are some of the largest and best equipped mills in the country. The company now owns every tin-plate plant in the United States making a product for the general trade. Just how long these establishments are to remain closed is impossible to say, but undoubtedly the company is trying to find out to just what extent it is necessary to operate the different plants to supply the demand. If it is discovered that all or nearly all are necessary, two lines of policy are open to the directors: first, to operate all the mills owned by the company; second, to close the more poorly equipped and badly situated mills and to increase the producing power of the better plants. It is more likely that the second, or at least a modification of it, will be followed."

The combination was very successful, and in 1901 was taken over by the United States 'Steel Corporation.

As this chapter is being written the Government has a suit pending to dissolve the last-named corporation on the

very unsettled and unsatisfactory to both buyer and seller alike. War and rumors of war, trusts and rumors of trusts, are having a disturbing influence, and in no branch of metal industry have prices been as unsettled and confusing as in tin-plates."

Tin and Terne, February 23, 1899.