VOLUME XLVII.-No. 21.

HARD BLOWS AT "RECIPROCITY."

Senator Root's Sensible Amendment Seems Likely to Be Adopted in the Senate.

(Correspondence AMERICAN ECONOMIST.) WASHINGTON, May 25.-The Democrats, who were going to do so much in the way of abolishing the Tariff at this session of Congress, begin to grow restive, because the Senate shows little disposition to help them upset the business of the country. Business has been injured to the extent of at least $100,000,000 already, according to estimates of men best qualified to judge; but that is a mere fraction of what will happen if the Democrats can have their way. Even the President shows impatience because the Senate does not accept the so-called "reciprocity" bill without waiting to hear from those who will be most affected.

Root Wants the Bill Amended. Senator Root has proposed an amendment to the Senate Finance Committee which, if adopted, will prevent the free admission of Canadian pulp and paper unless Canada allows free export and grants, without restriction, the same rights to American pulp and paper. In other words, Senator Root does not believe in granting any such a bounty to Canada, while Ontario, Quebec and other provinces may prohibit the exportation of pulp, etc., and restrict the expected benefit to Americans. President Taft admits that such an amendment would be just, but he says that it will delay "reciprocity," and is not of enough importance to be considered. The Republican Senators on the Finance Committee do not agree with the President, but will unquestionably adopt that amendment, and probably others.

Bitter Opposition Increases,

The longer time the country has to consider the matter the more vigorous becomes the opposition. Western and other Senators are receiving hundreds of letters from constituents protesting against the sacrifice of the farmers on the Free-Trade altar. Senator Crawford, of South Dakota, has printed a large number of letters received by him which show the intense feeling of the farmers and others in opposition to this bill, which will sacrifice their interests without giving them a single thing in return. Other Senators are similarly favored,

and the conviction grows that the passage of the measure will mean disaster to the Republicans at the next election. That is why the Democrats are so anxious to get it through.

Democratic Campaign Text-Book Denounced Reciprocity as a Fraud.

But many Democrats support it who do not believe in the wisdom of the measure, according to Mr. Gudger, the Democrat who represents for the third time the Asheville, North Carolina, district. They support the measure merely to confound the Republicans, regardless of the consequences to the nation. Mr. Gudger did not spare another North Carolina Democratic member. Mr. Kitchin, who has gone out of his way to denounce Democrats who did not support the reciprocity bill. Mr. Gudger read from the Democratic National Campaign text-book of 1902 the following extracts from an article on reciprocity prepared by Mr. Kitchin, Judge Harmon, now Governor of Ohio, and exSenator Carmack, of Tennessee:

Our farmers are not sending delegates to Washington to threaten Congress if it does not pass reciprocity legislation.

There is nothing in it for farmers. To them it is a sham and a fraud. Reciprocity cares nothing for the consumer, and hunts foreign markets with a club. Reciprocity cannot help the farmer, but may benefit some manufacturers.

Reciprocity with one country means a Tariff war with other countries. It makes few friends and many enemies.

Truth from a Democrat.

Mr. Gudger explained that Kitchin represented the largest peanut growing district, and peanuts are highly Protected, which accounted for his contradictory course. Equal privileges to all, the same treatment to all, Mr. Gudger declared, is a regulation that brings trade and good will. The enormous trade controlled by the United States should not be endangered by the passage of this bill. Canadian lands are much cheaper, and labor commands less wages there than in the United States, he declared, reading the following from a Canadian government commercial report:

There is a possible 656,000 square miles of land fitted for the growth of potatoes; 400.000 square miles suitable for barley, and 816.000 suitable for wheat. In Peace Valley alone there is 65,000,000 acres of first class agricultural land with a wheat growing capacity of approximately 500,000,000 bushels a year.

A Billion Bushels by 1920. Their motto, Mr. Gudger declared, was "a billion bushels of wheat annually by 1920." He asserted with emphasis that

$2.00 A YEAR. SINGLE COPY, 5 CENTS.

the "reciprocity" bill threatened calamity to the man in this country who is trying to pay for a farm, and was the worst blow that had been aimed at the agricultural interests of this country in many years. He called attention to the fact that the Wilson and Gorman bills put duties on corn, oats, barley, wheat, etc., now proposed to be admitted free. Republicans Tell Unpleasant Truths. Representative Caleb Powers, of Kentucky, declared that the bill was not reciprocity, but a Free-Trade measure, and the Democrats so regarded it, hence their preposterous free list bill. He told what this measure would do in diverting men and capital to Canada, in which country $304,000,000 of American money was invested in 1909, and to which country he said 90,999 emigrants from the United States went in that year.

Senator Crawford showed some more of James J. Hill's inconsistency in advocating the measure. He read from an article written by Mr. Hill a few years ago in which Mr. Hill said that the improved lands in the United States at that time would support in comfort 317,000,ooo people, enabling them to raise considerable food for export, and to engage in the necessary manufacturing employMr. Hill added:

ments.

Between 1875 and 1900 in [Free-Trade] Great Britain 2,691,428 acres which were under cereals, and 725.255 acres which were under green crops, went out of cultivation. In Germany [Protective Tariff] during the same period the cultivated area grew from 22,840,950 to 29,971,573 hectares, an increase of five per cent. Agriculture in Eng. land has suffered in the last 25 years [from Free-Trade] by the opening of new land in America and the opening of the world's transportation.

Mr. Hill might have added that agriculture in Germany and France did not suffer because they were under the Protection of Tariffs, as was the case in the United States.

Evidence All Against the Measure.

All the evidence is against this monstrous so-called "reciprocity" measure. The Tariff board, which has sent in a second report seeking to hedge on its first one, relates that from 1900 to 1909 barley was higher in Chicago than in Winnipeg, the difference for half of that time being above 13 cents a bushel. But under this monstrous "reciprocity" measure the American farmers are to be sacrificed for the brewers.

The pro-Canadian reciprocity farmer is a rare specimen.-Des Moines Capital.

POLITICS MEDDLING WITH BUSINESS.

Heavy Damage Wrought by the Taft Policy of Downward Revision of the Tariff.

to in 1911.

Bulletin of the American Iron and Steel Association; from the forthcoming annual report. As has been shown, the influences which tended to depress all business in 1910 were very largely political. These influences have been continued and added The additions are too important to be lightly passed over, and we shall enumerate them in the order in which they have occurred, with necessary reference to antecedent events. Political influences had helped to create the panic of 1907 and the hard times of 1908. After this experience it ought to have been impossible to further disturb the business of the country by creating unnecessary political issues of any kind. But see what has since been done!

In his inaugural address on March 4, 1909, President Taft said that Tariff revision, then to be undertaken, "necessarily halts all those branches of business directly affected, and as these are most important it disturbs the whole business of the country."

The President's Stubborn Insistence:

From that day to this the President, by his insistence upon the creation of a Tariff board, which he claims was authorized in the Payne Tariff of that year, has been the principal factor in continuing the agitation of the question of Tariff revision, the effect of which agitation upon the country's business he had correctly stated in his inaugural address. The Tariff board, with the strained powers which the President gave to it, and which he has recently enlarged to five members, none of whom are noted as Protectionists, has largely devoted its energies, by the President's direction, to the collection of information which can be used in a revision of the Payne Tariff, this revision to be "downward," of course. Instead of stability in Tariff legislation we have instability and apprehension.

Must Have Another Revision.

In his annual message to Congress on December 6, 1910, the President said that "the halt in business and the shock to business, due to the announcement that a new Tariff bill is to be prepared and put in operation, will be avoided by treating the schedules one by one as occasion shall arise for a change in the rates of each, and only after a report upon the schedule by the Tariff board competent to make such report." Here the President plainly intimated that another revision of the Tariff was desirable. But Mr. Taft could not wait for a report from the Tariff Board upon any schedule, as will now be seen.

Revision via Canadian Agreement: On Jan. 26, 1911, President Taft sent to Congress the text of a reciprocal trade agreement with the Dominion of Canada which had recently been negotiated between the Canadian authorities and our State Department by his express direction. The leading feature of the agreement is the surrender by the United States to Canada of Protective duties on our agricultural products. Cattle, horses, mules, hogs, sheep, wheat and other grains, hay apples and other fruits, potatoes and other vegetables, butter, cheese, poultry, eggs, etc., are to be admitted into both countries absolutely free of duty; also fish, boards, and other sawed lumber. Bacon and hams, mutton, pork, beef, and other meats are to be mutually subject to reduced rates.

Misconstruing McKinley.

In defending his Free-Trade agreement with Canada in a speech at Washington, on Jan. 30, Mr. Taft referred to President McKinley's advocacy of reciprocity treaties and said of him:

He came to know that the high Protection policy was too provincial and that it was time to moderate it. A Chinese wall and entire exclusiveness did not commend themselves to him. He had mellowed in his views on this subject.

In a speech at Springfield, Ill., on Feb. 11, Mr. Taft said that "the plank in the platform of the last Republican Convention, carried to its logical conclusions, would lead to substantial Free-Trade with Canada." In a speech at New York on April 27 the President said:

We tendered to the Canadian commissioners absolute Free-Trade in all products of either country, manufactured or natural, but the Canadian commissioners did not feel justified in go. ing so far.

These quotations are significant as showing the drift of Mr. Taft's own mind toward Free-Trade, notwithstanding his frequent declaration that “I am a Protectionist."

Calling the Extra Session.

The Canadian agreement was ratified by the House of Representatives on Feb. 14 by a vote of 221 ayes to 93 nays. Five Democrats and 88 Republicans voted against ratification and 143 Democrats and 78 Republicans voted for it. The Senate failed to ratify the agreement and it therefore fell on March 4 with the close of the Sixty-first Congress.

The Senate of the Sixty-first Congress having failed to ratify the Tariff agreement with Canada, President Taft, to the surprise of the country, issued on March 4 a proclamation calling the Sixtysecond Congress to meet in extraordinary session on April 4, for the express purpose of ratifying the Canadian agreement, no other object being mentioned in the proclamation.

Business Interests Amazed.

The business interests of the country were amazed that the President should thus deliberately decide to give fresh im

petus to the Tariff agitation which had been revived with his election to the Presidency, and which should have ended with the passage of the Payne Tariff. Although only the ratification of the Canadian agreement was named in the President's proclamation he certainly knew that the convening of the Sixtysecond Congress would mark the beginning of a Democratic attack on the Protective features of the Payne Tariff. On the first day of the session the Speaker of the House, Hon. Champ Clark, in an extended address, specifically enumerated "an honest, intelligent revision of the Tariff downward" as one of the promises of the Democratic party which must now be kept. "Downward," it will be remembered, is the President's own familiar phrase.

Incomprehensible.

It is simply incomprehensible that a Republican President, pledged to the maintenance of our Protective policy, should first negotiate a Free-Trade treaty with Canada and then open wide the door for a general revision of Protective duties by a party that is opposed to Protection. Surely political sagacity, political consistency, and regard for the public welfare should have restrained the President from calling an extra session. The calling of an extra session at this time is not only a new blow to all business, but it was wholly unnecessary from every point of view. If we were to make a serious break in our Protective Tariff policy for the benefit of Canada and to the injury of our farmers, Canada could have well afforded to wait for the regular session of Congress next winter.

Passed by Democrats.

The House of Representatives of the Sixty-second Congress, which was called by President Taft to meet in extraordinary session on April 4, approved the Canadian reciprocity agreement on April 21 and the bill ratifying the agreement is now in the Senate. The vote on the bill in the House was 267 ayes to 89 nays, 200 Democrats, 1 Socialist, and 66 Republicans voting for it and II Democrats and 78 Republicans voting against it. As it passed the House the bill contains a section in which the President is "authorized and requested" to make further efforts to obtain still "freer trade relations" with Canada in the form of additional reciprocal trade concessions.

The Free List Bill.

It will be remembered that the Canadian agreement provides for the free entry into our markets of a long list of agricultural products, thus diminishing. the demand for the products of American farms. To compensate our farmers for their losses, if that were possible, the Ways and Means Committee reported to the House on April 19 a bill to place various manufactured articles in the free

list, including barbed fence wire, sewing machines, agricultural implements, lumber, salt, wire for baling hay, cotton ties, bagging for cotton, harness, and many other articles which the farmer must buy. This bill largely extends the present free list. Its provisions are applicable to all countries. There is no pretense in any of its provisions of regard for the home industries which the bill would injuriously affect. It passed the House on May 8 by a vote of 236 ayes to 109 nays, the Democrats voting solidly for the bill and 24 Insurgent Republicans also voting for it. All the negative votes were cast by Republicans. The bill is now in the Senate.

The Corporation Tax.

Section 38 of the Payne Tariff, inserted at the instance of the President, provides that every manufacturing or other corporation which has been organized for profit under the laws of the United States shall pay a tax of one per cent. per annum on its net income over and above $5,000. An individual who may engage in a business which yields larger profits than a neighboring corporation is exempt from the payment of this tax. On June 16, 1909, when the Payne Tariff was under consideration, President Taft sent a special message to Congress favoring an amendment to the Constitution to enable the Government to tax incomes; also urging the taxation of corporations to the extent of two per cent. of their net earnings. A general income tax is not needed for revenue.

Federal Supervision of Business.

In his message the President said that one merit of the proposed tax on the income of corporations was that it would provide "the Federal supervision which must be exercised in order to make the law effective over the annual accounts and business transactions of all corporations." As a specific merit of this tax he claimed that it would mark "a long step toward that supervisory control of corporations which may prevent a further abuse of power." The "further abuse of power" at this time may be by the Government and not by the corporations. In the President's view the revenue to be derived from a corporation tax is of less importance than the authority to be given the Government to still further meddle with the country's industrial affairs.

The constitutionality of the corporation tax provision of the Payne Tariff was contested in the courts by various corporations, but on March 13 of the present year its constitutionality was unanimously affirmed in a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The tax yields over $27,000,000 annually. It will be observed that the President recommended a tax twice as large as that which was provided for in the Payne Tariff.

New Shock to Business Confidence. On February 22 the Interstate Commerce Commission decided unanimously against the railroad companies in the important freight rate cases that had been pending before it for nine months, the Commission refusing to permit a single increase of these rates to compensate the companies for the advances that had been made in the wages of their employees and to enable them to make necessary and expensive improvements in their tracks and terminals and additions to their rolling stock. One immediate effect of this decision was to compel the railroad companies to adopt and put in operation measures of retrenchment that would affect the purchase of supplies and the regular employment of their skilled and unskilled workmen. Another effect was a new shock to business confidence, which need not be enlarged upon. The economies which the railroad companies were compelled to adopt have distinctly and positively curtailed their expenditures for materials and labor and have thus injuriously affected the general business of the country. It was on May 31, 1910, that the railroad companies were restrained by an injunction, granted at the instance of the President, from increasing their freight rates. The decision of Feb. 22 is therefore the chilling culmination of a long period of uncertainty and needless harassing of our railroad interests.

Annoyances and Burdens Needlessly Inflicted Upon Business.

con

It will be seen from this summary of important political events that the enterprising men of our country who develop its resources and give employment to millions of workingmen have been subjected during President Taft's administration to annoyances and burdens from which they should have been wholly exempt. These annoyances and burdens have exerted a baleful influence on the prosperity of the country and are still exerting this influence. We are fronted this moment with one of the most serious of all these adverse influences-a continuance indefinitely of Tariff agitation, with further reductions in Tariff duties. It may with certainty be said that, with a Tariff-revising Congress in power until 1913 and a Republican President who favors Tariff reductions, the prospect for an early restoration of general prosperity is far from promising. The President has set his face toward a general reduction of duties. He has never disavowed, but has frequently shown his sympathy with, the statement of Secretary MacVeagh at Boston on December 8, 1909, that "the Republican party has changed its front"-"it has now faced about and is marching toward lower Tariffs," of course for the benefit of foreigners. There are real Protectionists everywhere who do not believe this

statement.

WHY FARMER JIM HILL LIKES IT.

For Reasons That Should Damn It in the Eyes of the American Farmer.

Crowley (La.) Signal.

James J. Hill tells the Associated Press that he is in favor of Canadian reciprocity and that only politicians are against it. Mr. Hill says that farmers are in favor of the measure which is the greatest that has arisen since the civil

war.

It is quite natural that Jim Hill would favor the Canadian reciprocity treaty, because the Canadian reciprocity treaty favors Jim Hill. Mr. Hill's railroad will haul Canadian farm products from the Canadian Northwest into the United States to undersell American farm products. Why shouldn't Jim Hill favor Canadian reciprocity treaty.

Mr. Hill's railroad will haul American farmers to the Canadian Northwest, because this reciprocity treaty will make the Canadian Northwest a more attractive home for the American farmer than the United States. In the Canadian Northwest the farmer will be able to buy his manufactured articles free of the duty he paid in the States, and he will sell his products in free competition with the farmer of the United States, who still pays duty on his manufactured articles. Why shouldn't Jim Hill favor the Canadian reciprocity treaty?

The Farmers' Free List bill? The Farmers' Free List has not passed the Republican Senate, and the Farmers' Free List bill has not yet received the signature of the Republican President.

As for Mr. Jim Hill, his cordial approval of the Canadian reciprocity bill is almost enough to damn it in the eyes of the American farmer.

Gone Dippy!

This country has never before witnessed the disgusting spectacle of a president of one party falling into the hands of the opposing party, as we now see Taft going body, soul and breeches over to the Democrats, on his insane theory that "reciprocity" with Canada is a good thing. The Democratic party is a FreeTrade party and they do not deny it. Taft was elected by Protectionists, and no one who voted for him believed him to be anything else. He is certainly gone dippy on this Free-Trade "reciprocity" movement, or else he is a Free-Trader at heart and believes that the whole country is going the same way. Well, let him cut loose and go with the Democrats. There are other Republicans who will stand hitched for Republican principles and issues. Taft may succeed in getting on the national Democratic ticket.-Pueblo (Colo.) Opinion.

BOARD OF MANAGERS.
Augustus G. Paine, N. Y.
A. R. Wilson, New York.
Lyman B. Goff, R. I.
George B. Meyercord, Ill.
Henry B. Joy, Mich.
Charles A. Moore, N. Y.
Theodore Justice, Penna.
William Barbour, N. J.
Francis L. Leland, N. Y.
H. 8. Chamberlain, Tenn.

Charles E. Coffin, Md.
Charles Cheney, Ct.
A. D. Julliard. N. Y.
Joseph R. Grundy, Penna.
A. H. Heisey, Ohio.
John E. Reyburn, Penna.
William Whitman, Mass.
R. G. Wagner, Wis.
John Hopewell, Mass.
Homer Laughlin, Cal.

Canadian Agreement.

There is sense and shrewdness in the favorable sentiment among British FreeTraders regarding the proposed Tariff agreement between the United States and Canada. They see in it an ultimate gain for British export trade. Light was thrown upon this phase of the question in a debate in the House of Lords on the 18th of May. The government was sharply criticised by the Earl of Selbourne in the House of Lords for what he termed its "extraordinary supineness" in failing to safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom in the American-Canadian reciprocity agreement. The earl referred to President Taft's "very remarkable speech," and declared that when Mr. Taft said the annexation talk was bosh, all accepted the President's word; nevertheless, the agreement formed a precedent capable of very large extensions. It was the first time in the history of the empire that one part had obtained better terms from a foreign country than had the United Kingdom, and the step between receiving and giving better terms was a short one. If the dominions got accustomed to receiving better terms, the earl continued, they might come to think that it was natural to give foreign countries better terms than they gave the United Kingdom or the other dominions of the empire. Ratification of the agreement, the Earl of Selbourne said, in conclusion, would place Great Britain in a position of extraordinary difficulty.

War Secretary Haldane, who recently was elevated to the peerage, said that it was the policy of the government to give the people of Canada every facility to do the best they could do for themselves. The government held that it was not to the disadvantage of the United Kingdom that Canada should develop trade relations with the United States. "We hold," continued the secretary, "that Canada, with a great trade of this kind, cannot fail to be a more prosperous Canada, affording a better market for our goods and able to do more trade with ourselves. Therefore, from every point of view, we look upon the step she is taking as probably a very good step in our interests, as well as in the interests of Canada. It is not for us to intermeddle in her policy. We do not think it a good thing to attempt to guide or influence the policy of our great dominions in matters of trade. We are FreeTraders, and we intend to remain FreeTraders."

Very naturally the expectation of the Free-Trade exporters of Great Britain is that Canada, as in the case of the treaty of 1854, will profit greatly through a near-by market for her surplus of natural products. She stands to profit far more through the Free-Trade bargain of

1911. By so much as Canada's purchasing power is increased by full entrance to the big American market for her exports, by so much will the British exporters increase their sales to Canada. They will continue to enjoy the advantage of a 33 1-3 per cent. preferential on all their manufactures. Generally speaking, American manufacturers cannot compete for Canadian trade with a Tariff handicap of 33 1-3 per cent. against them.

There is good reason to expect that the calculations of the British exporters of a greatly increased market in Canada will be realized. Large additional quantities of American money will find their way into Canada. The great bulk of this additional money will go to Great Britain to swell the trade and profits of British manufacturers. This is precisely what happened as the result of our foolish "reciprocity" treaty with Cuba. The outcome of that trade dicker was to so greatly increase our purchases of Cuban products as to create a yearly trade balance of from $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 against us and in Cuba's favor. We are supplying Cuba with that much more money with which to purchase merchandise in Europe. Our own manufacturhave gained somewhat in sales through the Cuban treaty, but we continue to buy from twice as much as we sell to Cuba, and the excess of imports over exports creates a steady drain of American money for the benefit of European manufacturers. British producers confidently count upon exactly the same result of Free-Trade in farm products and other articles between the United States and Canada. Quite likely they have another reason for favoring the Canadian pact. They see in it the downfall of the American system of Protection.

ers

All Prices Would Be Lowered.

After quoting the statement of a Kansas farmer that automobiles in the rural districts have come to stay and that "they are going to sell for much less money than they are bringing now," the Wall Street Journal adds:

Automobile sales among the Western farmers have made a market which the manufacturer will be slow to surrender. It is a widespread belief among farmer patrons that machines will have to come down in price to meet farm product values.

So will many other articles of manufacture have to come down in price if farm product values are to be lowered by FreeTrade in farm products. When the farmer is forced to sell cheaper what he has to sell, the manufacturer also will be forced to sell cheaper. And, worst of all, American labor will have to be sold cheaper! If the undoubted facts were better understood, the manufacturers and wage earners, as well as the farmers, would be a unit against the price-lowering FreeTrade policy of the Canadian pact.

The Discreditable Record of Leading

American Newspapers.

Lafayette Young, editor and proprietor of the Des Moines Capital, late Senator from Iowa, and one of the foremost newspaper men of the United States, coincides with the view repeatedly expressed by THE AMERICAN ECONOMIST regarding the singularly selfish and altogether discreditable attitude of a large number of Republican newspapers toward the Free-Trade "reciprocity" propaganda. We say "singularly" selfish, because we feel sure that the temporary gain which these newspapers might derive from Free-Trade in print paper would ultimately work out as a positive loss. Newspapers whose profits depend almost entirely upon advertising pa

most certainly be followed by Free-Trade on a general scale. Would that be good for the newspapers? We should think not. So we say they are "singularly" selfish in favoring Free-Trade merely because it will give them cheaper print paper. Singularly short-sighted, too, we believe.

But listen to Lafayette Young on this question. Mr. Young is a conspicuous member of the Associated Press and of the American Publishers' Association. That fact imparts especial significance to the following editorial in a recent issue of the Des Moines Capital:

Collier's Weekly is evidently of the opinion that American newspaper publishers have discredited themselves in their fight for free wood pulp and free paper. that the

Collier's Weekly notes the fact

large part of the press in this paper and wood pulp proposition, is it any wonder that people are heard to say: "We can't believe the newspapers any more; they are always working for themselves."

It will take a third of a generation for the American press to live down the odium cast upon it by this fight for free paper and free wood pulp.

Speakers in Congress have called attention to the matter fearlessly. Uncle Joe Cannon has not stood alone by any means in this respect. Others have pointed out the facts.

As a publisher we regret the present situation more than we can tell.

It is an undeniable fact that the leading metropolitan newspapers are losing their grip as moulders of public thought. The people are finding them out. This fight for free print paper, at the expense of the American paper making industry, and at the heavy cost of Free-Trade all along the line later on, is their crowning

tronage are directly affected by prosperity or depression among their advertisers. If the country is prosperous the newspapers are prosperous in due proportion. If general business falls off, the business of the newspaper must suffer accordingly. This could be proved if the newspapers would compare their advertising receipts and their profits, say from January 1, 1894, to January 1, 1897, a low-Tariff period, with their advertising receipts and profits in any three years since the election of McKinley and the restoration of Protection brought prosperity back to the American people.

Now the installation of Free-Trade through the Canadian agreement would al

rec

American Publishers' Association is conducting a literary bureau, sending out ready-made articles showing the beauties of Canadian iprocity. The said ready-made articles are smart enough not to mention free wood pulp or free paper. They mention the other advantages of Canadian Free-Trade.

The American people are fully aware of the situation. The American people know what the newspapers are doing. They know what they have been doing. They know that the so-called big newspapers which were sore on Taft on account of his Winona speech have suddenly become enthusiastic supporters of President Taft on account of Canadian reciprocity.

Nothing has happened within forty years so discreditable to the American newspapers. Canadian reciprocity would have had no following of any consequence except for the American newspapers which have been mainly influenced by the prospect of cheaper paper on which to print their newspapers.

With full knowledge of the selfishness of a

achievement of display of selfishness. It

is, as Lafayette Young says, the most discreditable epoch in the history of American journalism in the past forty years.

Congress, or rather the lower House, has begun its raid upon the Tariff, and the effect is already seen in the dullness of trade and the abandonment of industrial plans. The farmer witnesses what his vote was largely responsible for. With prosperity looming on every side and prices of his products at the highest point, he thought he wanted a change and he got it. The whirlwind is being reaped, under the cry of "high cost of living."Newton (N. J.) Register.