to have developed considerably further than in protectionist France; but, on the other hand, the movement toward combination has gone much further in extent in Austria and Germany, both protectionist countries, than in England, although in England the form of combination is generally more complete. Doctor Liefmann, in an article on combinations in England, expresses the opinion that the chief reason for the lesser development of monopolistic combinations in England and the continuation of severe competition in branches of industry in which in Germany there have existed for a long time very rigid combinations-for example, the coal industry-ascribes the cause rather to the principle of extreme individualism in England, which has a much firmer hold on business men, in his judgment, than in Germany, and this appears, on the whole, to be the right conception."

AMERICAN TARIFFS FROM 1789 TO 1897.

[From "Protection and Prosperity," by Geo. B. Curtiss, Binghamton, N. Y.]

Dates of Passage and Operation with Salient Features and

Consequences.

Act of July 4, 1789.-Went into effect August 10, 1789. Duties imposed upon 75 articles, 40 specific; 35 ad valorem; 15 free. Average rate on total imports 72 per cent.

August 10, 1790.-Went into effect January 1, 1791. Imposed 50 new duties and increased many of previous year. Average rate on total imports 8 per cent.

March 3, 1791. Slight increase-unimportant-rates increased

on spirits. Average rate on total imports 8.43 per cent.

May 2, 1792.-Went into effect July 1, 1792. Over 150 articles were enumerated in this bill. General increase of 22 per cent. Average rate on total imports 10.93 per cent.

June 5-7, 1794.-Went into effect July 1, 1794. Imposed additional duties and made slight increase in many existing. creased rates on tobacco, snuff and refined sugar. on total imports 13.88 per cent.

InAverage rate

January 29, 1795.-Rates changed on types, sugar and wines. Many changes, some reductions. Twenty-five articles on free list. Average rate on total imports 8.04 per cent.

March 3, July 8, 1797.-Increased rates on sugar, tea, molasses, velvets, cotton goods, candy. Average rate on total imports 9.25 per cent.

March 13, 1800.-Went into effect July 1, 1800. Increased rates on sugar and wines. Average rate on total imports 13.11 per cent. March 26, 1804.-Went into effect July 1, 1804. Increased all ad valorem rates 22 per cent. Increased rates on goods in foreign vessels 10 per cent. Additional rates on many specific articles. Mediterranean Fund. Average rate on total imports 13.06 per cent. March 3, 1807; March 4, 1808.-Salt and copper, saltpetre and sulphur made free. Increased duties on brass, hats, iron, linen, wines and many other articles. Average rate on total imports 28.71 per cent.

Embargo Act passed in December, 1807, prohibiting all imports from England and France, repealed May 15, 1809.-This was not a tariff measure, but at the same time had the effect of stimulating many industries. The people of the United States were thrown entirely upon their own resources and the result was new industries established, and increased production in existing manufactures.

Act of July 1, 1812.-Went into effect same day. Known as the war tariff. All duties were doubled. Supplementary Acts, February 25, 1813; July 29, 1813; March 3, 1815; February 5, 1816. Great activity in manufacturing due both to high duties and the war. Average rate on all imports 32.73 per cent.

Act of April 27, 1816.-Went into effect July 1, 1811. Known as the Lowndes-Calhoun bill. War rates were considerably reduced. Ad valorem duties ranged from 7% to 33 per cent. Unenumerated goods paid 15 per cent. Iron and other metals 15 per cent. Woolen goods 25 per cent. Minimum principle adopted. Intended as a protective measure but failed because of duties be. ing too low to prevent vast importations from England at less than cost prices. Average rate on all imports 26.52 per cent. April 12, 1818.-Rates changed on Iron and Alum.

March 3, 1819.-Rates on certain wines reduced. Average rate on all imports 35.02 per cent.

Act of May 22, 1824.-Went into effect July 1, 1824. Decided increase in duties with most significant and gratifying results. Average rate on all imports 37 per cent.

Act of May 19, 1828.-Went into effect September 2, 1828, and July 1, 1829. Known as the "Tariff of Abominations." Minimum extended. Rates increased. Average rate on all imports 47.80 per cent.

May 20, 1830.-Rates reduced on teas, coffees and cocoa and molasses.

July 14, 1832.-Went into effect March 4, 1833. Known as the "Modifying tariff:" Duties on iron reduced, on woolens increased.

Act of March 2, 1833.-Went into effect January 1, 1834. Known as the "Compromise Tariff." Rates reduced 10 per cent of all duties in excess of 20 per cent, etc., each alternate year till January 1, 1842, one-half the remaining excess of 20 per cent to be taken off on that date and the other half July 1, 1842. Linens, worsted goods, shawls and manufactures of silk made free. Average rate on all imports about 17 per cent.

July 4, 1836.-Rates reduced one-half on wines.

September 11, 1841.-Articles free and those paying less than 20 per cent to pay 20 per cent. Railroad iron reduced to 20 per

cent.

Act of August 30, 1842.-Took effect immediately. General revision and increase of rates 50 to 75 per cent. A thoroughly protective measure. The result was a revival of industry and trade, followed by general prosperity.

Act of July 30, 1846.-Went into effect December 1, 1846. Known as the "Walker Tariff." General reduction of duties. Changes from specific to ad valorem rates, duties for revenue only. Effects of this tariff were most disastrous in spite of foreign war, famine and the discovery of gold.

Act of March 3, 1857.-Went into effect July 1, 1857. General revision and further reduction of duties. A culminating free-trade act, resulting in panic and commercial ruin. The worst period in the nation's hstory.

Act of March 2, 1861.-Went into effect April 2, 1861. Intended to raise the necessary revenue for government expenditures.

duties.

August 5, 1861.-First of the war tariffs, large increase in December 24, 1861.-Duties increased on sugar, tea and coffee. July 14, 1862.-Went into effect August 2, 1862. Further increase of rates.

March 3, 1863; April 20, 1864; June 30, 1864; March 5, 1865; March 15, 1866, and July 28, 1866.-Bills changing and generally increasing duties.

Act of March 2, 1867.-Took effect immediately. Rates increased on wool and woolens giving great benefit to those industries.

Free list large

February 24, 1869.--Rates increased on copper. July 14, December 20, 1870.-General changes. ly reduced. Duty of $28 per ton on steel rails. May 1, 1872.-Tea and coffee made free. June 6, 1872.-Went into effect August 1, 1872. Reduction of 10 per cent. Increased free list. June 22, 1874.-Revised statute, with slight and unimportant changes. February 8, 1875.-Known as the "Little Tariff Bill." General

changes.

March 3, 1875.-Took effect immediately. Rates increased on sugar. Repeal of 10 per cent reduction of act of June 6, 1872. July 1, 1879.-Quinine made free.

July 14, 1880.-A few unimportant changes.

May 6, and December 3, 1882.-Repeals discriminating duty. Act of March 3, 1883.-Went into effect July 1, 1883. Known as the Tariff Commission Bill. General revision, reductions and increased free list. Severe blow to wool industry.

Act of October 1, 1890.-Went into effect October 6, 1890. Known as the McKinley Bill, the most perfect tariff measure ever framed. Changes from ad valorem to specific rates. Enlarged free list. Sugar made free, a bounty being substituted. Reciprocity law. Unusual prosperity in all lines of industry. More men employed and at higher wages than ever before in the history of the nation.

Act of 1894.-Went into effect August 27, 1894. Known as the Gorman-Wilson Bill. Became a law without the President's signature. General reduction of duties. Wool put on free list. Great falling off in number of sheep. Increased importations of competing commodities to the detriment of American manufacturers. Great increase in national debt. Deficiency of revenue. Impairment of gold reserve, necessitating repeated bond issues. Decline in foreign trade. General depresson in business throughout the entire countrty.

Act of 1897.-Went into effect July 24, 1897. Known as the "Dingley Act"-thoroughly protective and stated in its title that its purpose was to provide revenue for the Government and "to encourage the industries of the United States.' It was followed by a revival of manufacturing, mining, agricultural and transportation industries, by a great increase in the general business of the country and increase in the exports of manufactures, large additions to the deposits in savings banks and an era of general prosperity.

Anti-Free Trade Data in England.

[From New York Tribune.]

A correspondent asks upon what data Mr. Chamberlain bases his demand for the abandonment of that free-trade system which was introduced to Great Britain as the consummate flower of business shrewdness, political wisdom and humane benevolence, and which has been maintained during half a century of marvellous growth and prosperity. Mr. Chamberlain points, then, to facts such as these:

That sixty years ago the United Kingdom was practically selffeeding, while to-day more than half its meats and more than two-thirds of its grains are of foreign origin.

That in 1840 it purchased from abroad only 23,000,000 hundredweight of food of all kinds while now it purchases 304,000,000 hundred weight.

That this change is by no means altogether because of the

increase of population, but also because of the decrease of home production. It sixty years the population has increased by 58 per cent, while the foreign food bill has increased by 1,180 per cent. Also in thirty years the area planted in wheat has decreased by 26 per cent, and that in vegetables has decreased by 14 per cent.

That the farm profits of the kingdom, which were nearly £47,000,000 a year before free trade, have been reduced under free trade to less than £15,000,000.

That of Great Britain's enormous import trade, so greatly boasted by free traders, one-half consists of food, drink and tobacco.

That the industrial imports of the kingdom are declining, having been £7 5s. a head in 1871-'75, and being now only £6 13s.

That during the last century, while exports have increased only from £2 9s. to £6 14s. a head, imports have at the same time increased from £1 19s. to £12 11s. a head.

That while the decennial increase of population was 15 per cent in 1821-31 and 114 per cent in 1831-'41, before free trade, it was only 8 per cent in 1881-'91 and less than 10 per cent in 1891-1901, under free trade.

That these and other similar facts and figures indicate an unhealthy state of affairs, which must be remedied if hopeless decline of British greatness is to be avoided.

This last named is not a fact of statistics. It is a deduction made by Mr. Chamberlain and by those who take his view of the case. It is, however, scarcely denied by the free traders.

DEMOCRACY AND PANIC PERIODS.

[From Philadelphia Press, July 13, 1904.]

All our worst panic periods have come, not after a free trade tariff actually adopted, but after Democratic success and free trade agitation. What has been worse in the memory of men now living than the terrible grinding years from 1875 to 1878, with the strike summer of 1877 between? These years followed a Democratic House, elected by a tidal wave in 1874. No turn of the tide came until the political tide turned.-The Press, June 28.

A wide range of our Democratic friends in various newspapers are worried over this paragraph. The panic of 1873, they aver, assert and reiterate, came out of a Republican sky. So it did. The Republican party was in full control when Jay Cooke & Co. put up its shutters in September, 1873.

This was a financial smash. A speculative craze brought a speculative crash. A gold crash had come in September, 1869, and recovery followed. A stock crash came in September, 1873. A crash in stocks may come without affecting general business. In 1901 there was a headlong fall in stocks, failures and liquidation, but the general trade of the country was not affected. In 1873, the mere failure of one great railroad system, not yet completed, need not have brought a long period of depression. Recovery should have followed.

It did not. In 1874 a Democratic tidal wave swept the country. Free trade was talked everywhere. The currency was attacked. The Democratic party allied itself in all the Western States with the greenback craze. Resumption was assailed. When the resumption act was passed by the Republican party it was attacked by the entire Democratic party. East and West it was denounced as "Sherman sham."

The Democratic party challenged confidence in the gold value of the greenback. It straddled. It nominated for President a free trader, though a hard money man, Tilden. It nominated for Vice-President a free trader and a soft-money man, Hendricks. Eastern Democrats favored a gold value for all currency, but attacked paper money. Western Democrats demanded more paper money. The party was divided as it is now and, as now, its new leaders in 1876 and in 1880, anxiously sought to persuade the public to forget the recent financial errors of the party.

From 1874 to 1878 this Democratic policy depressed all business and destroyed trade. The panic of 1873 had come and gone. The price of stocks recovered in the Winter of 1874. Trade picked up. Failures fell in amount to a normal year. After the election of a Democratic House in 1874 stocks fell and failures increased. As Democratic greenback agitation went on, opposed by Eastern Democratis, but urged West and South, as with free

silver, worse came. In 1877 shares went to their lowest point. In 1878 aggregate failures exceeded those of 1873. The total of liabilities has never been exceeded but once, in 1893, after the last election of Grover Cleveland.

Worse years than 1877 and 1878 the country has never known. They were years, as every one remembers, of the end of the greenback and the beginning of free silver, of agitation for Democratic free trade and its outspoken support by the Democratic party.

The Republican party in 1879 resumed gold payments and prosperity came when Bland and every other Democrat was predicting disaster. Democratic free trade was met by the assertion of Republican protection. In 1880 this was the chief issue, and when it was won prosperity came like a flood.

"No turn of the tide came until the political tide turned."

Tariffs and Revenues, 1790 to 1904.

Years in which low tariffs and protective tariffs, respectively, have been in operation in the United States, showing the excess of expenditures or receipts of the Government in each year. [Compiled from official statements of the Treasury Department.]

THE PANIC OF 1893-94 WAS NOT DUE TO CROP FAILURES. The assertion has been persistently made by the apologists for the Wilson-Gorman tariff that the general depressed financial and industrial conditions and shortage of money then existing were due to short crops in 1892, 1893, and 1894 and were not chargeable to the tariff law. This assertion, while absolutely untrue, is worthy of careful attention because of its misleading character and because of the fact that without investigation the statement appears plausible. It is possible to show, for example, that the corn crop of 1892 was 400 million bushels less than that of 1891; that the wheat crop of 1892 was 96 million bushels less than that of 1891, and that the oat crop of 1892 was 77 million bushels below that of 1891; and this statement unaccompanied by any other facts or figures might give some color to the claim that the depression of 1893 was due to some extent at least to the short crops in 1892. But a further examination of the figures of production for a term of years shows the absolute falsity of this assertion. The table given below shows the production, farm value, and value per bushel of corn, wheat, and oats in the United States from 1885 to 1903. It will be seen from an examination of the table that while it is true that the corn, wheat, and oat crops were less in 1892 than in 1891, they were in each case more than those crops in 1890. The corn crop of 1892 was 1,628,464,000 bushels, as against 2,060,154,000 bushels in 1891, and this is urged as one of the causes of the financial depression of 1893; but an examination of the table will show that the corn crop of 1890 was only 1,489,790,000 bushels, as against 2,112,892,000 bushels in 1889. As a drop of 623 million bushels in the corn crop of 1890 as compared with the preceding year caused no panic or financial depression in 1891, how can it be possible that a drop of 432 million bushels in 1892 was the cause of the panic in 1893? The same general line of facts holds good with reference to wheat and oats. While it is true that the wheat crop of 1892 was 96 million bushels below that of 1891, it is also true that the wheat crop of 1890 was 91 millions below that of 1889 and no panic ensued; and similar conditions are apparent with reference to the oat crop of 1890.

An examination of the column showing the average farm value per bushel of these crops, which accompanies the statement of quantity produced, is suggestive. This shows that the farm value per bushel of corn, which was 50.6 cents in 1890, practically 40 cents in 1891 and 1892, moved steadily downward until it reached 21.5 cents in 1896 under low tariff; that the farm value per bushel of wheat, which in 1890 and 1891 was above 83 cents, had fallen to 49 cents in 1894; and the farm value of oats, which in 1891 and 1892 was 31.5 cents per bushel, was 18.7 cents per bushel in 1896. Production, farm value, and value per bushel of corn, wheat, and oats, 1885 to 1903.