A Kiss in the Rain BY SAMUEL M. PECK. One stormy morn I chanced to meet Her locks were like the ripened wheat, And then-and then-I know 'twas wrong- With raindrops shining on her cheek Like dewdrops on a rose, The little lassie strove to speak, My boldness to oppose; She strove in vain and quivering, Oh, let the clouds grow dark above, 'Tis always summer when we love, And I am as proud as any prince, She says I am her rain beau since His Future BY ARTHUR GUITERMAN. [In Collier's Weekly.] Quick and hair-triggerous, Joyous and vigorous, Home from the niggerous* African shore, * Oh, we'll make it "rigorous" if you don't like the word. Bringing a zoo with him, Our Theodore ? What new renown for him ?— No sweet manorial, Honors will do. Give him the Stick again, Railroad commissioner? Graft abolitioner ? Something like that? Do you admire him? Laid on the shelf? He'll run himself. Abandonment of Protective Tariff Triangular Intercollegiate Debate-Philadelphia: Penn (aff.) defeated Columbia (neg.). New York: Cornell (neg.) defeated Columbia (aff.). Ithaca: Penn (neg.) defeated Cornell (aff.). "Resolved, That our legislation should be shaped toward the gradual abandonment of the protective tariff." Briefs prepared by Frank A. Paul. AFFIRMATIVE. I. The reasons that justified protection in the past do not justify it to-day, under changed economic conditions. These reasons were: (1) to foster infant industries. (2) to equalize the difference in cost of production. (3) to develop the home market. These reasons always hold in an immature, undeveloped country. Hamilton, Blaine, Friedrich List, Reed, McKinley and all leading protectionists justify the system. only as a temporary measure to transform an agricultural into an industrial and commercial nation. This transformation is now substantially complete. The infant industries of forty years ago are giants now. Iron and steel products, machinery, boots and shoes and other vast interests, totaling over two-thirds of the capital invested in protected industries, are independent of the necessity for tariff coddling altogether. History repeats itself in American industries, and those businesses which still require protection show a clearly-defined tendency away from the need thereof. II. No tariff is needed to equalize the difference in cost of production here and abroad, because, generally speaking, there is no difference, unless it be in our favor. This second argument is the illegitimate descendant of the infant industry argument. It finds its chief ground for support in the admittedly cheaper wages paid abroad. There are three elements in the cost of production: (1) raw materials. (2) transportation. (3) labor cost. The tariff effectually handicaps American industries by inflating the cost of raw materials. Present drawback systems are unsatisfactory, and for several reasons can never succeed. Wholesale revision with a view to ultimate tariff-for-revenue-only would inure directly to our benefit in this respect by cheapening raw materials. Transportation is the same as between America and European producers. Labor cost is the determining factor, therefore. But wages fund and labor cost are not synonymous terms. The American operative is paid twice as much or more; but he is worth the difference. This is conclusively proved when the well-paid American product can undersell the pauper product in its own market. There is economy in the high wages of America because of (1) the ability, ambition and enterprise of American labor. (2) our superior natural resources. (3) our superior industrial organization. Statistics show that on the two fluctuating factors in production, raw materials and labor cost, we have everything to gain by immediate revision. III. The home market argument is no longer in point as a justification for continued protection. It was in the first century of our industrial existence. The country is well-knit together, homogeneous, wellpopulated now. The home market has advanced by leaps and bounds; but the domestic capacity for supplying it has outstripped even its growth. Most firms now produce more than the home market can absorb. Our annual surplus is conservatively estimated at $2,000,000,000. These reasons, however, are purely negative. They can be supplemented by three positive arguments in favor of gradual abandonment. IV. In the first place, protection keeps prices inordinately high. Wages have advanced 19 per cent in the last fifteen years; the cost of living has advanced 49 per cent. This is directly traceable to the high tariff. The Elgin Watch Co. recently shipped 2,500 American-made watches to London, sold them at a profit there at such a price that they could be re-shipped to New York, made to pay the duty and successfully compete with American watches that had come direct from the maker. Instances of this kind could be multiplied ad infinitum. V. Again, high protection causes the depletion of our natural resources. Coal, iron, lumber, wood pulp, and other natural products native to our country are used up at a reckless rate. This also is directly traceable to the tariff. President Roosevelt and other high authorities agree that it is folly to continue this exhaustive process. VI. Finally, protection hampers us in extending our foreign markets. A progressively expanding foreign outlet for our surplus products here is absolutely necessary to insure prosperity. By keeping out foreign products, we also shut our own in. While we sell about $500,000,000 worth of goods abroad every year at lower retail prices than here, though in general still at a profit, this leaves the bulk of our two million dollar surplus unprovided for. With competition keen, the United States cannot trust to luck for markets as heretofore. Our foreign market has obviously not thrived under protection. Six countries outsell us in the Orient. Our South American trade is onetenth what it ought to be. Reciprocity, a theory with abundant opportunity for trial, has failed. High tariff has invited retaliation. This shows that we must solve the problem of foreign markets by immediate revision of the tariff. For these reasons, our legislation should be shaped toward the gradual abandonment of the protective tariff. Such revision on articles that are produced more cheaply here should be made, and such a sliding scale, adjusted to each industry on its merits, should be adopted, that we can ultimately abandon protection when no longer needed, if it be to our advantage to do so. NEGATIVE. I. Protection is founded on reason and experience in America. It is the typical American system. We have never had free trade and hardly ever a tariff-for-revenue-only. The tariff has been accompanied by a period of tremendous industrial expansion and prosperity. This prosperity |