country. And the other was a proposition for unemployment pay. Unemployment pay is a subsidy and encouragement for idleness, that Great Britain is finding to be worse than a disease. They have paid out a billion pounds since the war, and 1,280,000 persons are still (April, 1925) officially on the list, while fresh scandals appear each day. It is like feeding a dog with a piece cut off his own tail.

It is frequently claimed for political purposes that government and state industry is being conducted at a profit. This almost invariably proves to be untrue when the real facts are disclosed. The people of Detroit were informed on May 15, 1923, that their municipally-owned street railways had earned a profit of over a million dollars during the first year of operation. The truth which was known month later was that no maintenance or depreciation had been charged into operating expenses, and that there was no profit whatever, but a deficit of more than one million dollars.

With the establishment of government operation the large taxpayers disappear. The country loses immense amounts of revenue with an increasing burden upon the small taxpayers.

Government ownership is a political issue that agitators and demagogues are forever exhuming either as a bait to catch votes, or because they

have not taken the trouble to acquaint themselves with facts.

It has frequently been tried and has left an almost unbroken record of failure.

An other fundamentally unsound theory that the socialistic government of Switzerland attempted to put into action in 1923 was a "levy upon capital." The same thing was repeatedly suggested by the Labor party in England, during the crisis of 1923-24. A levy upon capital simply means that, in order to meet a government deficit, accumulations of capital and private property are confiscated according to certain schedules, exactly as the Bolsheviki in Russia have been doing since 1917. Fortunately for Switzerland, this scheme was defeated at the polls by a vote of seven to one. The principle is entirely wrong. The harvest should be taxed, not the seeds that grow the harvest. We have seen the results of capital levies in Russia. No one will accumulate property in a country where it is likely to be seized by the government. It has often been tried and the results are always the same. Such conditions caused the collapse of the Florentine government in the time of Lorenzo de Medici, and we find written in a contemporaneous history of Florence these words:

"Labor, having destroyed Capital, found itself out of work."

THE TARIFF

As this is a very large and very complicated subject, nothing more than a brief outline of the Democratic and Republican views regarding tariff will be stated.

It is a generally accepted fact that in order to be prosperous, a nation must have what is known as a "favorable balance of trade," that is, that the value of its exports exceed the value of its imports. In such a case, a country is producing more than it is buying and is receiving more money for its products than it is paying out to foreign countries. It is keeping its money at home.

The Democratic position as regards tariff is that a country should have a tariff "for revenue only." They claim that it is unfair to the consumer to forbid him to buy cheap goods, either here or elsewhere.

Before the war, the price of a suit of clothes was $50 to $60 in the United States, whereas better clothes could be bought in England at the time for $25. The Democrats claim that the tariff which keeps the British clothes out of our country is an injustice to the consumer. The same applies to all other commodities and manufactured products.

The Democratic Campaign Book for 1924 states that:

The Fordney-McCumber tariff act is the most unjust, unscientific and dishonest tax measure ever enacted in our history. It is class legislation which defrauds all the people for the benefit of a few. It heavily increases the cost of living, corrupts the government, and in the long run does not benefit the very interests for which it was enacted.

We denounce the Republican tariff laws which are written in great part to aid monopolies. We declare our party's position to be in favor of a tax on commodities entering the Customs House, that will promote competition, and at the same time produce a fair revenue to support the government.

It has been repeatedly stated by the Democrats, and with much truth, that there is, and has been, an "insidious lobby" in Washington, seeking to secure favorable legislation for specially privileged monopolies or powerful corporations. President Wilson was emphatic in his denunciation of this condition.

The following typical case is a good example of the evils that can be wrought by a high protective tariff: For some twenty years prior to 19—, our imports of, let us say, manganese had been almost nil. In other words, we had nothing to fear from foreigners in regard to manganese production. Shortly after the Republicans come into

Last year (1924) there were 145 organizations maintaining headquarters at Washington representing special interests. Their purpose is to influence legislation-and they do it.

power, the tariff on manganese is suddenly, and for no apparent reason, raised 250 per cent. Immediately following this, the "X. Y. Z. Company" boosts its prices accordingly. As manganese is an essential in the manufacture of steel, this raises the price of every steel product from plows to battleships. And the taxpayer pays the bill.

The "X. Y. Z. Company" as it controls all the sources of manganese in the United States has a complete monopoly of the American production of this metal. This company will therefore get the profits, and is probably responsible for raising the tariff.

Who, now, owns this company?

An investigation is held, and it is revealed that Mr. "A" and Mr. "B" own practically all the stock. Mr. "A" and Mr. "B" prove to be influential in politics, or even actively engaged in it.

Such a disclosure produces great and righteous indignation on the part of the consumer, and there is much to be said in support of the Democratic protests against such action.

Similar situations have frequently occurred, notably in the wool business, under the PayneAldrich tariff. Such things are indefensible.

Now let us hear the Republican side of the argument. The Republicans claim that, unless our industries are protected from foreign compe