English prices of staple commodities, as given by the Dun's Review shows an index number aggregate prices per unit, of 350 commodities, averaged according to importance in per capita consumption, for July 1, and comparison with previous dates, as follows: Jan. 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, Aug. 1 Breadstuffs. . . $17.700 $12.783 $13.483 $14.898 $14.904 $20.534 $19.983 Clothing. Metals. 9.185 8.826 9.157 9.482 9.086 8.748 8.821 13.430 14.663 15.021 16.324 15.098 15.533 15.582 14.665 11.843 15.635 14.834 15.344 16.084 16.239 Miscellaneous.. 13.767 12.522 12.969 16.070 16.617 16.826 16.526 Total. . . . $89.822 $77.768 $85.227 $91.415 $91.509 $101.910$100.177 It will be seen that while domestic prices have considerably advanced on nearly all products over those which prevailed a year ago, there has been a slight falling off in many articles since June. Beef cattle are slightly higher than two months ago, the causes which raised prices in this particular having not been removed. POLITICS AND BUSINESS PROSPERITY In no other country does business prosperity depend so much upon politics as in the United States. This is due to the fact that our extraordinary industrial growth, which has no parallel in any other country, is largely the result of a political policy which has encouraged and protected the development of domestic industry. Of course, it may be said that this dependence of business prosperity upon political policy is a misfortune. Yet, if all laws regarding trade were abolished, and business left entirely to the scramble of competition, government would render practically no aid to society and civilization. It may be admitted that the policy of protection has made business prosperity more dependent upon politics than it otherwise would have been, but, on the other hand, it has contributed more largely than anything else to our extraordinary and unparalleled progress. This inconvenience is the price we have to pay for the opportunities which in less than a century have raised us from a weak, straggling and sparsely-settled agricultural country, to the foremost position among the nations. Without this policy, we should probably now be a fifth or eighth-class agricultural nation, with perhaps thirty million population, and without influence or standing among the civilized nations of the world. That the product is worth the price is too obvious to need discussion. Since this is the peculiarity of our position as a nation, it must be reckoned with in considering our national welfare and public policy. It is useless to point to the experience of any other country in this matter, because there is no other nation that is similarly situated. Of course, there has always been a division of opinion on this subject. The democratic party has persistently adhered to the anti-protection doctrine. The southern confederacy made it a conspicuous feature of its constitution, and all the various fac tions of the present-day democratic party agree on this point. It is true that the pressure of popular opinion, born of national experience and obvious self-interest, has frequently made the democratic party acquiesce and even endorse the protective policy, but fundamentally it is opposed to it. Protection, on the other hand, has been the abiding principle of the republican party. It came with Hamilton, was defended by Webster and Clay, was endorsed and established by Lincoln, and ever since has been the foundation policy of the republican party. It is needless to say that during the period in which this policy has been steadily maintained, our exceptional progress in wealth, population and national influence has taken place. It is quite natural and consistent that the party which has never accepted the protective theory of public policy should continue to oppose it. It may be a matter of surprise that it learns nothing from experience; that it denies obvious facts and reaffirms exploded propositions; but those who cannot see should not be censured for being blind. If the democratic leaders, from Bryan to Cleveland, believe that free trade should be adopted, they must be expected to advocate that policy. So recently as 1892, the nation temporarily yielded to an experiment with the democratic theory, and the effect is too painfully well known to need describing. The American people are not mere theorizers. They care not for an abstract idea of free trade, democracy, or republicanism, a Bryan or a Roosevelt. What they are interested in is the welfare of the nation. Government, parties, presidents and political leaders are important only as they contribute to that end. The nation is now in a high state of prosperity. Never before did all the economic forces so unitedly work for national welfare and permanent prosperity as during the last few years. Shall that be destroyed and an era of business disturbance and depression be inaugurated by a change of political theory? No pride of theory, prestige of party, or political ambition should be permitted to produce such a calamity. The responsibility for the continuance of our national prosperity rests with the administration. The democrats are under no such responsibility in this matter. They are doing what they have always done, and what they may be expected to do, viz.: demanding the overthrow of the protective policy. All that can be properly asked of them is that they will refrain from misrepresentations. The republican party and the administration are the responsible guardians of our present national welfare and prosperity. They claim the honor of representing its principles and policy. They have the control of both branches of the national legislature and of the executive. If, for any reason of personal ambition or political expediency, they aid and abet, or acquiesce in a change of policy tending to jeopardize the stability of our present prosperity, the responsibility will be theirs. Whether it was true in England, as Disraeli said, "that no ministry could withstand three bad harvests," it is very true that no administration or party in this country can stand an industrial depression of its own making. Lincoln's advice, "not to swap horses while crossing a stream," was never more applicable to our national policy than now. If a business-disturbing change in public policy comes now, woe unto the party by which it cometh. Of course, it is not to be presumed that the tariff is never to be changed, nor is it to be expected that the tariff will last many years without showing some abnormal qualities. There never was a tariff law free from arbitrary and unreasonable features, but that is true of every other kind of law known to human experience. No law was ever framed for the regulation of sanitation, the protection of life and property, or dealing with the common affairs of men, which did not have in it objectionable features; and the tariff law is no exception. Moreover, when a tariff law has been adopted, many schedules that are economically justified at the time the law is passed become unnecessary and sometimes injurious by the industrial progress of the country. Excellent reasons could be given to-day for removing the duty on hides, and for putting coal and lumber on the free list, and perhaps certain kinds of iron products; but the permanence of the industrial prosperity of the country is so much more important than these individual items that they are not to be considered in comparison. There are many reasons why a general revision of the tariff should not be made a political issue at this time. During the last three or four years the industrial development of this country has been extraordinary. There were a great many natural causes which led to this-causes which grew out of the social life and the consuming capacity of our people; but there were three facts which stimulated this development which were wholly abnormal, the South African war, the war with Spain and the war in China. These three events were all wealth-consuming affairs; they stimulated transportation and created great demands for iron and steel in the building of ships, and the furnishing of guns, ammunition, and for clothing, horses, rations, etc. In all, these wars furnished a demand for manufactured products aggregating nearly a thousand millions a year. These sources of demand have practically ceased, which means a large curtailment of the market for the leading articles of industry. Another significant fact is that the normal boom which set in in 1897 and 1898, bringing exceptional demands for new equipments in all lines of production, has practically reached its apex. In the nature of things, there will be something of a lull in this direction, not necessarily a reaction, but a lull. These two facts, which are general and far reaching, will necessarily have a modifying effect upon the extraordinary demand for products that has ruled during the last two years. This means that business will settle down to closer competition, smaller margins of profit, and necessarily to a more conservative pace. This will bring with it somewhat lower prices. It is a feature of all exceptional industrial expansion that prices become temporarily |