VERY LITTLE INTEREST TAKEN IN THE MOVEMENT.

The Manchester Guardian, the ablest of all the provincial papers of England, in its issue of July 23, in the course of a long editorial on the passage of the Mills Bill in the House, said:

The Republicans are seeking to cast odium upon their opponents by dubbing them "Free-traders," a name which until recent years was almost as distasteful to the average American as is that of Protectionest to the average Englishman. But, in truth, free trade as we understand the term, never has been and is not likely soon to be a Democratic doctrine. There is an obvious purpose in this Republican taunt. The design is to catch the Irish vote by representing Mr. Cleveland as the friend and ally of freetrade England. Enormous quantities of tracts and leaflets are being distributed amongst the people, setting forth this supposed alliance of the President, and quoting abundantly the articles of English newspapers in which any kind of admiration of Mr. Cleveland or of his official conduct is expressed. We are represented as being overjoyed at the prospect of being able, with the aid of Mr. Cleveland and his party, very soon to "flood" the American markets with the products of our "pauper labor." This is an old device, and although it has lost much of its ancient force, it may to a certain extent serve the end in view. Everyone on this side the ocean is aware, however, that the prospect of tariff reform is viewed here with satisfaction on one ground only. The mass of our people believe in free trade, as Americans believe in Republicanism, and just as the latter take pleasure in anything pointing to the growth of their idea of the best form of national government, so we are undoubtedly rejoic d at the prospect of any step which may tend to enlarge international commercial intercourse.

Moreover, the Republican leaders cannot be ignorant of the fact that most Englishmen take not the slightest interest in the tariff reform movement in America, whilst many farseeing persons amongst us regard the adoption of anything like free trade in the United States as likely to make the latter much keener competitors with us in neutral markets than they are now. Such men do not look upon President Cleveland's policy with satisfaction. Having regard to their own interests alone, they would much rather see the present system of high Protection maintained. Others again, think that the present policy of the Democrats is likely to retard rather than to hasten on the progress of tariff reform. These argue that if left alone, the existing tariff will in the course of a few years bring on a cricis, under pressure of which Protectionism will be entirely swept away at a blow. Such considerations as these go to show that, save only as a means of promoting international commerce and international friendliness, there is no strong desire in this country for the success of the Democratic policy.

WHAT THE GLADSTONE ORGAN THINKS OF IT.

Turning from this expression of opinion in the manufacturing districts of England to the London papers, the same general fear of injury finds expression. The Daily News is the organ of Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal party, and is the only one of the great morning newspapers of London which has supported the Irish demand for Home Rule. On July 24, in a local discussing the Mills Bill, the News said:

It has been the habit of the Republicans to deride every attempt of the Democrats at Reform of the Tariff as a Free Trade measure. It is their way of giving a dog a bad name. They have employed most specious pleading to convince the workingmen that the President of the United States, as well as the majority in Congress led by Mr. Mills, have attempted reform in the interest of British traders, and that the Bill under consideration, if passed, would swamp the industries of the States. The New York Tribune, the organ of the Protectionists par excellence, only recently said in one of its leading columns, "As a British candidate, as a representative of British manufacturing interests, Mr. Cleveland is admirable," &c., &c. The true issue was very plainly stated by Mr. Cleveland in his famous message to Congress last December. Mr. Cleveland urges a reduction of the surplus by removing the duties upon raw wool and other raw materials necessary in manufacturing, and a reduction of the duties upon manufactures and necessaries of life, based upon these altered conditions. The President has, however, emphatically protested against the attempt to brand those who seek to correct the evils of the existing system of rabid Protectionism "as Free Traders and enemies of our workingmen and industrial enterprises."

Whether English traders and manufacturers have reason to congratulate themselves, or to expect an increase of trade with the States from the ultimate enactment of the Mills Bill, is a question of grave doubt. An examination of the bill seems to show that, if anything, while reducing taxation, it is more Protectionist than the law which it is intended to supersede. The present American tariff is a war tariff, and it was based on the necessity of taxing all and every commodity that could possibly be taxed. Many of its provisions are due to the fact that inland duties had to be compensated by equivalent import duties. These inland dutics have long been removed, while all equivalent import duties have remained. Thus, in point of fact, the tariff, beside being practically higher now than at its highest before, is absolutely increased in its protective features by this removal of equivalent inland duties.

SOME TRADE PAPER OPINIONS.

Carrying the examination still further into the trade papers, the following expressions may be noted:

[London Warehouseman and Drapers' Trade Journal.]

A tariff bill which leaves an average duty of forty-two and one-half per cent. upon all imported articles is very far from being a "free trade measure." Nor is it at all certain that if a free-trade policy were adopted by the United States it would be any special advantage to us. They would certainly become much more formidable as competitors in the world's markets.

[Engineering Trades' Report, London.]

In the United States free-trade principles which, till recently, have only met with a lukewarm support from a minority of the people, are likely soon to receive more attention, the issue being forced in the coming Presidential election. The inconveniences and losses which must always attend a radical alteration of fiscal policy will, however, hinder any sudden change, and the manufacturers of the country need not anticipate for some years to come the serious competition which will arise in foreign markets directly their American rivals are free to sell abroad.

[From the London Shipping World for August.]

It answers the purpose of American journals opposed to the Administration and re-election of President Cleveland to pretend that Mr. Mills's bill is framed in the interest of British manufactures and commerce! The New York Tribune, describing the scene in the House of Representatives during the closing period of Mr. Mills's speech, tells us that the gallery reserved for the members and attaches of the Diplomatic Corps contained the representatives of the British Embassy, and other foreign legations from countries which stand ready to pounce upon the richest market in the world, if the Free Traders succeed in their scheme."

It is scarcely worth noticing observations of this class, which are, indeed, appeals to the prejudices of that section of the American people who have not thought out the great economic problem of their country. The political representatives of this country at the Republican court are aware, or should be aware, that the best thinkers, and the most astute manufacturers of England, know full well that, so long as the present tariff 18 maintained by the United States, that enterprising country will be so hampered and handicapped in the race for ascendency in the International market that it can never compete against this country with any reasonable hope of success.

Europe receives from America, in considerable quantities, manufactured articles such as agricultural implements, boots and shoes, etc.; and it does not seem to be a very abstruse proposition-that if the duty upon the articles used in the manufacture of these exports were taken off they could be produced at less cost, could be exported in larger quantites, and would yield a better return of remuneration to those engaged in their manufacture.

So long as the price of articles exported is enhanced by a high tariff upon the materials used in their production, so long, also, will it be impossible for the United States successfully to compete with us in the markets of the world.

Knowing this, we are in no hurry to see Free Trade become the national policy of the United States; for whomsoever might be benefited by that policy, serious loss would, undoubtedly, eventually be ours.

Even in Germany, where protection has been made more rigid during the past ten years, the Monthly for Textile Industry, a trade paper of Leipsic, expresses the same fear as the newspapers of England are shown to feel. In a recent number it said:

It is well known that Germany participates largely in the export of woolen goods to the United States, and it is now asked how far the abolition of the American duty on wool will affect German woolen industries. The question may be answered by saying that the effect is not likely to be a favorable one, because it is thought that the American woolen industry, upon the removal of the import duty, will improve and progress in such measure as to curtail our woolen goods export trade to that country.

These are only specimens of the opinions held by the people of foreign countries on the question of tariff revision now under discussion here. But they show as plainly as anything can that the proposed removal of hard restrictions is looked upon with anything but satisfaction by the commercial rivals of this country. Sensible people can see plainly from these that the charges made by Republican newspapers are as false as they are idle. These few extracts are a complete refutation of the charge that any man in any party in this country has considered anything but the good of their own people.

CHAPTER XLII.

"FAT" IN THE TARIFF.

AN EXPERT REPUBLICAN OPINION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF

TARIFF BENEFITS.

What a Senator Has to Say on the Question—An Unusually Pithy Letter Included in an Official Republican Document Soliciting Contributions.

James P. Foster of New York is President of the Republican League of the United States, organized in December last as an auxiliary to the general and local committees of the party. He had not been long in place until he concluded that he wanted some money to promote the cause, so he issued a circular which included within it a letter written to him by Senator Edmunds of Vermont, which not being intended for publication, told an amount of truth truly unusual. The following is the full text of the circular-the most successful political boomerang ever thrown in American politics:

I.
[CONFIDENTIAL.]

[Dictated.]

Office of ALBERT DAGGett, 51 New Street, (Room 12)

NEW YORK, May 25, 1888.

MY DEAR SIR: I have been requested to submit the enclosed communication to you, and I do so with the greatest pleasure. With my knowledge of practical politics, I unhesitatingly say that this is the most important undertaking in the campaign of 1888, and I confidently rely upon your prompt endorsement and assistance. Will you kindly subscribe and return the enclosed subscription list to me at as early a day as practicable, as the work is outgrowing the resources of the League, which now contains over 5,000 clubs, with a membership of half-a-million voters?

[Enclosure.]

Very truly yours,

ALBERT DAGGETT.

[Dictated.]

[Confidential.]

HEADQUARTERS
of the

REPUBLICAN LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES.

NEW YORK, May 25, 1888.

MY DEAR SIR: The Republican League of the United States desires to bring you face to face with the startling fact that the coming Presidential election is not to be fought on the old party lines which have heretofore divided Democrats and Republicans, but upon the direct issue of free trade vs. protection.

The League stands for protection and is fighting in your interest. It is no Fourth of July organization for dress parade, but is an every-day working force of practical political workers, who have in four months enrolled an army of over 400,000 men to fight against British free-trade ideas, British gold, and Democratic Hessians, who are fighting under her banners. It is useless to argue the case; Democracy stands for free trade and against your interests, and you know it, no matter whether you have heretofore been a Democrat or a Republican. Highsounding platforms of words cannot gainsay this fact, nor fool you unless you wish to be fooled.

The coming campaign will be fought for protection under disadvantages never before encountered. Ninety-nine per cent. of the Federal officials are Democrats, and will contribute financially to the hoped for success of the free-traders. Never before has the Democratic free-trade or "tariff-reform" party been in so fortunate position.

The Republican League is not composed of theorists who are for ever promising to do something and never keeping their promises. It has already done more than any other political organization ever attempted before the Presidential candidates had been placed in the field. As our patriotic volunteers sprang to the country's defense when secession threatened its destruction, so at the call of the League vast armies have been enrolled to fight the thousand times more dangerous foe to the. country's continued prosperity-free trade.

We will win this fight if you will do your share and help us to finish what we have begun; we want money, and want it at once. We are overwhelmed with calls for tariff documents and for speakers and organizers. We propose to organize and fight against free trade in every doubtful Congressional and Legislative district in the United States. To-day there is but one majority in the Senate of the United States when the lines are drawn between Democrats and Republicans, and unless much is done, the next Congress will see a free-trade House, Senate, and President, and then good-by to your prosperity.

It may not be of your personal knowledge, but it is a fact, nevertheless, that the manufacturers of the United States who are most benefited by our tariff laws have been the least willing to contribute to the success of the party which gave them protection, and which is about to engage in a life-and-death struggle with free trade.

A Republican United States Senator, from a State which never had a Democratic representative in either house of Congress or a Democratic State officer, in speaking of the well-knnon disposition of the manufacturing interest to lock up its money, fold its hands, and look on while somebody else fights for its success, says:

"The campaign which we are about to enter will concern, more than anybody else, the manufacturers of this country. They have heretofore been very laggard in

their contributions to the Republican cause. In fact, if I could punish them without punishing the cause of protection itself, I would consign them to the hottest place I could think of on account of their cravenal parsimony. If this class of people do not care to contribute to the success of the Republican party, they are welcome to try their chances under a Democratic administration: I can stand it as long as they can." And, again : "I was solicited to contribute to a protective-tariff league, and I replied that if the manufacturers of the United States in their associated capacity were an eleemosynary institution, that I would vote to give them a pension, but that I did not propose myself to contribute money to advance the interests of men who were getting practically the sole benefit, or at least the most directly important benefits of the tariff laws. I am in favor of protection, not precisely the kind we are having, but I might be willing to keep even that rather than not have any, but I am sure I can get along without any of it fully as well as the manufacturers can, and if they think the Republican party is going to maintain a high protective corps for their benefit, and the men who do the work in that party are going to keep up the expenses of a campaign out of their own pockets, leaving them to reap the fruits of the tariff policy without any deduction for political expenses, they are very greatly mistaken. I understand that in a general way the manufacturers of New England have been more liberal in their contributions than those of Pennsylvania.

"In fact, I have it from the best possible source that the manufacturers of Pennsylvania, who are more highly protected than anybody else, and who make large fortunes every year when times are prosperous, practically give nothing towards the maintenance of the ascendency of the Republican party. Of course, I shall not violate what I consider to be proper principle of action; but if I had my way about it, I would put the manufacturers of Pennsylvania under the fire and fry all the fat out of them. If the Mills Tariff Bill comes to the Senate, there will be some votes cast there which will open the eyes of some of these people who have, while gathering their millions, treated the Republican party as their humblest servant."

These are strong words, and bitter, but they are true, and it now remains with you and your associates to determine whether they are to be reiterated after this campaign is over, and protection has, through your apathy, been struck its death blow. If you give us the means to win the victory, we will do it. Are you willing?

Yours very truly,

JAMES P. FOSTER, President.

II.

WHY HE CAN NOT HELP.

A REPUBLICAN MANUFACTURER WHO DOESN'T PROPOSE TO HAVE ANY FAT FRIED OUT OF HIM IF HE KNOWS IT.

A Republican manufacturer in North Adams, Mass., who has received a copy of the interesting circular sent out by James P. Foster, President of the Republican League of the United States, has written a letter explaining why he can not send Mr. Foster any "fat." He says that the company with which he is associated is engaged in the manufacture of cotton goods, and is therefore "one of the protected industries of New England," and adds: