Only one refuge is left for our apologists, and they have all fled to it; and that is the claim that these foreign sales are made either at cost or at an actual loss. And why do these philanthropists, the trusts, sell goods at a loss? Simply in order to keep the workingmen busy, so that they will not lose their wages. The argument presupposes that the 80,000,000 inhabitants of this country are too poor to keep the mills and factories at work all the time and that the trusts love the dear people so much that they take money out of their own pockets in order to give them steady work. The exports of the United States for the year ending June 30, 1904, are valued by the Government at $452,000,000. As all of these, according to Mr. Schwab, were sold at a lower price than the goods sold in the home market, the trusts would have the American people believe that they deliberately lost money on almost a half billion of exports solely for sweet charity's sake. A trust has been defined as an entity with neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be damned. If, however, we are to believe these apologists, they are all soul and the sublimest personifications of altruism this world has ever seen. Apart from the inherent improbability of this claim are the facts, so far as we can gather them. Mr. Schwab claimed before the Industrial Commission that the United States Steel Co. lost money on its exports. Mr. Carnegie, whose colossal fortune was made out of steel (spelled with two e's) admits that steel rails, for instance, which cost Americans $28 per ton and Europeans $22, can be sold at a profit at $12. If that be true of rails, it is undoubtedly true of other steel products. I feel convinced that investigation will demonstrate that on all exports of building materials a profit is made.

Protectionists should therefore join forces with free-traders in demanding the repeal of the tariff tax on building materials as not only utterly unnecessary from the protectionist standpoint, but as a handicap on Americans in their struggle for supremacy in the race of civilization. Remove this tax, and the demand for masons, carpenters, and housebuilders generally will be so great that wages will rise, and thus enable the mechanics in their turn to become home-owners. Remove this tax and in a few years the number of homes will be doubled. Remove this tax, and the pressure of population in the tenement-house districts will be lessened, while little cottages will multiply in the suburbs. Remove this tax, and tens of thousands of little pallid children, instead of dying amid the stenches of the tenements, will grow to sturdy manhood and sweet womanhood in God's country.

"The American home, the safeguard of American liberty," the motto of the United States League of Local Building and Loan Associations, demands that we, above all, should join in the movement to strike the shackles from the home-building industries. Indeed we should be the leaders, for it was to increase the number of American homes that building associations came into existence. Our cooperative thrift movement seeks to depopulate the tenements, those pestilential breeding spots that may some day hatch out the demons that will subvert our liberties.

The late Jay Gould testified before an investigating committee that he was a Republican in Republican counties, a Democrat in Democratic counties, but always an Erie man. I think that it will be profitable to take a leaf from the book of experience of the monopolists, for they are among the ablest men in the country. Why should we allow our political prejudices to stand in the way of accomplishing an object that is near to the hearts of all of us? Some of us are Republicans, some of us are Democrats, some are protectionists, some are free-traders, but all of us are building association men. Let us forget that we are partisans of this party or that, but let us remember that we are partisans of a deep-seated purpose, and that that purpose is the upbuilding of the American home.

Hon. O. W. UNDERWOOD,

COST OF LIVING.

ANGLO-AMERICAN Co., Portland, Oreg., February 5, 1913.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: As the prosperity of the country depends on the earning capacity of its people, and this in a measure upon its productions, import and export trade, and cost of living, I take the liberty to emphasize what is current knowledge to thinkers and writers that the cost of living is an important factor in universal prosperity.

The high cost of living is fostered by trusts and combines, which, in turn, are fostered by the tariff. Therefore I believe it will be a popular measure, one which will save millions of dollars to our people, if food products of every description are placed on the free list.

With our unbounded resources in soil, water, and climate, knowledge of agriculture, both scientific and practical, we have no reason to fear competition; also the more our

tariff is simplified the less will be the cost of collection of revenues, thereby reducing this tax upon the people.

The foods of the majority of our people, next to wheat, flour, corn, and oatmeal, which need no protection, are beans, peas, potatoes, and similar vegetables common to the universal table, and should there be a deficiency in our own crops these can best be supplied from abroad if on the free list, thus keeping the cost of living at a minimum. I would also strongly urge that all kinds of cattle foods and all burning fuel for house, manufacturing, and ships' use be placed on the free list.

Yours, very respectfully,

T. O. HAGUE.

DARBY, MONT., February 4, 1913.

The COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: I understand you ask for suggestions on tariff reform. I beg leave to submit the following:

(1) Abolition of all duties on foodstuffs, especially meats, to reduce the high cost of living, for it is becoming unbearable to the mass of the people.

(2) An export duty on all foodstuffs shipped out of the country. Let us take care of our own people.

(3) Let us have an import duty of $300 per person on every foreign immigrant that lands in this country.

It is absolutely unfair to American labor to give protection to the manufacturers of this country and then let the cheapest labor of the world come here at the rate of 1,000,000 a year in the most direct form of competition with American labor. The rich man is protected, the laboring man is absolutely unprotected. We no longer need immigration to settle the country, for I live in the West and I know the good land is all taken and the labor market is already overstocked, and yet the Pacific coast expects 500,000 of these cheap laborers to come to the coast States through the Panama Canal in 1915.

If the gentlemen of the Ways and Means Committee wish to push back the date when this country will elect a Socialist President and Congress you had better take up this immigration question soon, for if it is not done Socialism will sweep this country within 10 years, for the great army of the laboring people will get desperate when they are even denied work and can no longer be even a paid slave. I myself am a Government employee, but even in this Western country I hear every day the rising storm of rebellion against present conditions. I have heard many men who last fall voted for Wilson say that if there was not a radical change in conditions in the next four years their next vote would be Socialist. If this administration attempts to retain the high protective duties and protect the special-privilege class and allow the labor market to be continually overstocked by the large employers of labor, as is the case at present, there will be a series of landslides at election time, for the masses to-day are in a progressive frame of mind and are strongly of the opinion that the laborers of this country who produce the wealth of the Nation shall in the future receive a larger share of the wealth they produce, and this tariff revision should be to the end of bringing that result about and make living conditions more tolerable for the masses. Very respectfully,

E. L. YEAGER.

FEDERAL INCOME TAX.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,

Washington, D. C.

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
New York, February 4, 1913.

DEAR SIR: In framing a Federal income-tax law under the authorization of the last amendment to the Constitution, I beg to suggest to you the propriety of making therein provision, similar to the provision contained in the British income-tax law, excepting from the burden of the tax a limited portion of the income which the taxpayer applies to the purchase of insurance for the protection and support of his family.

Under the provisions of the British income-tax law, first enacted in 1842, and known as the income-tax act (5 and 6 Vict., c. 35), as amended by the income-tax act of 1853 (16 and 17 Vict., c. 34), "Any person who shall have made insurance on his life or on the life of his wife * * and any person who shall under any act of Parliament be liable to the payment of an annual sum, or to have an annual sum deducted from his salary or stipend in order to secure a deferred annuity to his widow or a provision

*

*

*

to his children after his death, shall be entitled to deduct the amount of the annual premium paid by him for such insurance or contract, or the annual sum paid by him or deducted from his salary or stipend as aforesaid, from any profits or gains in respect of which he shall be liable to be assessed. * Provided, always, That no such abatement and allowance or repayment as aforesaid shall be made in respect of any such annual premium beyond one-sixth part of the whole amount of the profits and gains of such person

*

*

The obvious object of such legislation is to make it as easy as possible for persons to make suitable provision for those depending upon them for support, and to encourage self-reliance and self-support among the people. It seems a wiser provision than involuntary insurance under the command of law, which is now so general in some of the old and conservative countries of Europe, such as Germany and England, and which they justify on the ground that insurance is a public necessity.

The several States of this country in their legislation recognize the principle underlying the provisions above referred to in the British income-tax law, not by incorporating them in the income-tax law of the States-for few States have income-tax lawsbut almost without any exception they recognize them in their insurance laws by authorizing the heads of families to insure their lives for the benefit of their wives and children, or any of them, exempting such insurance from any liability for the insured's debts or engagements, or otherwise, to the extent that the premium paid for it did not exceed a sum specified in the law.

For example, in Alabama such a law may be found in the Code of Alabama, 1907 (sec. 4502). This Alabama law has had an interesting history, which indicates a settled policy of the State to encourage such provision for the family by protecting the proceeds of such insurance from diminution or diversion upon any ground or

excuse.

Such a law was passed by the legislature of this State as long ago as 1840, and its provisions have been enlarged and strengthened in favor of the integrity of the proceeds of such insurance by numerous subsequent amendments. The wisdom of such legislation has never been questioned here or elsewhere so far as I can find.

May we not hope, therefore, that the Congress will be as wisely considerate on this important subject in whatever measure it adopts for the purpose of levying a tax on incomes as have been the legislative bodies of European countries and of our several States?

For your convenience I inclose herewith a full copy of that part of the British income-tax law of 1853 (16 and 17 Vict., c. 34) above quoted from.

Yours, very truly,

[Inclosure.]

D. P. KINGSLEY,

President.

"Any person who shall have made insurance on his life or on the life of his wife, or who shall have contracted for any deferred annuity on his own life or on the life of his wife in or with any insurance company which shall become registered under any act to be passed in the present session of Parliament for that purpose and which shall comply with the requirements of such act; and any person who shall, under any act of Parliament, be liable to the payment of an annual sum or to have an annual sum deducted from his salary or stipend in order to secure a deferred annuity to his widow or a provision to his children after his death shall be entitled to deduct the amount of the annual premium paid by him for such insurance or contract or the annual sum paid by him or deducted from his salary or stipend, as aforesaid, from any profits or gains in respect of which he shall be liable to be assessed under either of the said schedules (d) or (e) of this act, or to have any assessments which may be made upon him under either of the said schedules reduced or abated by the reduction of the amount of the said annual premium from the amount of the profits and gains on which said assessment has been made; or if such person shall be assessed to duties under any of the schedules contained in this act, and shall have paid such assessment, or shall have paid or been charged with any of the said duties by deduction or otherwise, such person, on claim made to the commissioners for special purposes, and on production to them of the receipt for such annual payment, and on proof of the facts to the satisfaction of the said commissioners, shall be entitled to have repaid to him such proportion of the said duties paid by such person as the amount of the said annual premiums bears to the whole amount of his profits and gains on which he shall be chargeable under any of the schedules of this act: Provided, always, That no such abatement and allowance or repayment as aforesaid shall be made in respect of any such annual premium beyond one-sixth part of the whole amount of the profits and gains of such person so chargeable as aforesaid, nor

shall any such deduction or abatement entitle any such person to claim detailed exemption or any relief from duty on the ground of his profits and gains being thereby reduced below £100 or £150, as the case may be."

Section 54, the income tax act of 1853 (16 and 17 Vict., c. 34).

DETROIT, MICH., February 19, 1913.

Hon. FRANK E. DOREMUS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. DOREMUS: I want to call your attention to the subject of the Federal income tax. As a taxpayer and a citizen, I have given a great deal of thought to this subject, and it seems to me that while the principle is fair, that unless the matter is worked out with a good deal of thought and care, it is not only liable to cause considerable injustice but class feeling in this country.

From what we have seen in the newspapers the proposal is to tax incomes amounting to $5,000 and over. I believe I am safe in stating that a very large majority of the people do not have incomes of this size. In other words, those who enjoy an income of $5,000 and over are in a minority. A person's interest in their Government is directly proportionate to the amount of direct taxation which they are compelled to pay to support this Government. The trouble with our indirect system of taxation; that is, our tariff system, is that people do not realize they are paying this amount out, and consequently they do not pay much attention to governmental expenditures or the resulta attained. I believe if the best results are to be obtained by our income-tax system; that is, the idea of obtaining a sufficient revenue to interest people in the Government and to prevent class feeling, that all incomes of every kind from $1,000 per annum and upward should be taxed under the Federal income-tax system. Not necessarily a heavy tax. My idea would be to make those of from $1,000 to $2,500 pay the smallest minimum possible, say one-eighth of 1 per cent; of $2,500 up to $5,000, say one-fourth of 1 per cent; of $5,000 to $10.000, another advance; of $10,000 to $25,000, another increase, and so on upward until those people who are enjoying incomes of the largest sizes would pay the heaviest tax. In this way, there could be no class feeling engendered, no feeling of discrimination, and all classes would realize that they were compelled to contribute their share toward the burden of supporting the General Government, without throwing the bulk of this expense on a few people. All of which is respectfully submitted for your consideration when the matter comes up in the House of Representatives.

Yours, very truly,

F. C. GILBERT.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY A. J. CONDEE, LOS ANGELES, CAL.

Hon. OSCAR UNDERWOOD,

LOS ANGELES, CAL., January 22, 1913.

Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: An organized clamor might create the impression that the people do not need or want real tariff reduction, even though they emphatically said so last November. The people-the consumers-are not the ones benefited by protection and are about sick of the pretense.

The big beet-sugar plant at Oxnard, Cal., owns a vast acreage on which it raises its own beets, with the aid of Japanese. Last year, when sugar went up in the East because of an alleged shortage in the supply, these fellows out here boosted their prices to the same level and called it "good business." This is their own evidence before a committee of Congress. Further, the great sugar refineries in New York have always employed Polaks for laborers, paying them $1 a day for 12 hours' work and seven days a week. The American laborer gets a lot of benefit--as much as the general consumer. The protection in sugar has built up some gigantic fortunes, that have been of no benefit to our country, and their possessors have not hesitated to defraud the Government of its revenues.

The very men out here who are demanding protection for their oranges, olives, lemons, etc., have said they are looking forward to the opening of the Panama Canal to bring them cheap foreign labor. They furnish shacks, about like a dog house, for their fruit pickers to sleep and eat in, but say that white men refuse to work. The Catholic societies of this State have presented a bill to the California Legislature to compel these men begging for protection to give their laborers decent housing and bedding.

There is not one single industry of magnitude in the United States that is paying good wages unless forced to do so by some labor union, and yet the pretense is made that railroad men, plasterers, masons, printers, etc., are well paid because of the high tariff. Take their shoe mills, cotton mills, and woolen mills. Plenty of tariff protection, and both wages and quality of the output have been lowered until the laborers can not live and the goods are as worthless as the promises of the mill owners. Do you remember the cry for protection to infant industries and American labor? Well, they were given the high tariff, and have hunted down and utterly destroyed every little competitor in the country, and have supplanted the American laborer with men who can not even talk the English language. Men out here who have voted the Republican ticket for a generation joined the Democratic Party at the last election because it has declared so emphatically for tariff reduction and against any further tariff protection.

I am fairly well acquianted with conditions from New England to the Pacific coast, and I unhesitatingly urge you to hew to the line. It is the best thing you can do for both your country and your party.

Yours, truly,

A. J. CONDee.

CHILD LABOR.

THE COTTON MILL: THE HEROD AMONG INDUSTRIES.

[By A. J. McKelway, secretary Southern States National Child Labor Committee.] Good old Nathaniel Morton, in his New England memorial, assigned as one of the reasons why the Pilgrim Fathers left the Old World for the New this:

"That many of their children, through the extreme necessity that was upon them, although of the best dispositions and graciously inclined and willing to bear part of their parents' burdens, were oftentimes so oppressed with their heavy labors that, although their spirits were free and willing, yet their bodies bowed under the weight of the same and became decrepit in their early youth, and the vigor of nature was consumed in the very bud."

When we begin to study the child-labor system in England, which the Pilgrim Fathers found so oppressive to their children that its existence was one reason for coming to the New World, we find that the cotton mill occupied a bad eminence. All through the eighteenth century we find references to the employment of children of tenderest years in cotton mills. These references are mostly of a congratulatory nature that a place for the child has been found in the world of industry and that the child is no longer an encumbrance but an asset. The attitude of the English people during this century may be summed up in the following quotation: "A quarter of the mass of mankind are children, males and females, under 7 years old, from whom little labor is to be expected."

It is interesting to note that though the Pilgrim Fathers say they came to America partly to escape the oppression of their children child labor preceded them, for in 1619, the year before the Fathers planted their considerable feet on Plymouth Rock, there is an acknowledgment of the General Court of Virginia of the 100 children sent over, "save such as dyed in the waie." A letter from England in 1627 mentions incidentally the fact that "there are many ships going to Virginia, and with them 1,400 or 1,500 children." These children were mostly paupers, but were often kidnaped and bound out to service. In 1646 two houses were erected in Jamestown for the manufacture of linen, and the different counties were "requested to send two poor boys or girls, at least 7 or 8 years old, to be instructed in the art of carding, knitting, and spinning." The textile industry did not flourish in Virginia, however, on account of its greater agricultural opportunities, and, returning again to the Pilgrim Fathers, one finds in Johnson's sermon on "Wonder Working Providence," published in 1638, that he commended the industrious people of Rowley, Mass., who had “built a fulling mill and caused their little ones to be very diligent in spinning cotton and wool."

It would seem that we must bring another indictment against the Pilgrim Fathers in addition to the familiar one, that having come to this country to escape religious persecutions they so soon became persecutors themselves, for after they came to America to escape the evils of child slavery they speedily inaugurated the system on American soil. In 1656, considering the development of manufactures in Massachusetts, the order was issued that "all hands not necessarily employed on other occasions, as women, boys, and girls, are hereby enjoined to spin according to their skill and ability."

Tench Cox argues that women and children will meet the demand for factory labor with the newly invented power machinery. In Niles's Register the statement is made that the work of manufacturing does not demand able-bodied men, but "is now better