land and France. It is applied to all European countries except Portugal, and to all but a few non-European countries.

"The maximum and minimum tariff system is distinguished from the above system, first of all, in its form. Instead of having two rates for a few articles it has two rates on most articles on which duties are imposed, and for this reason is frequently called the doubletariff system. In the application of these rates the maximum schedule corresponds to the general schedule and the minimum schedule to the conventional schedule of the system just described, since the minimum rates are given only to those countries which receive the most-favored-nation treatment. The characteristic difference between the two systems, however, arises from the difference in their origin. The minimum schedule is not drawn up by negotiations between the executives of the two countries, but is framed by the legislative body at the same time that the maximum schedule is made. That is, the legislative power fixes two rates of duty on each article in the tariff. The higher rate is the one which fixes the maximum extent to which those articles may be taxed on entering the country; the lower or minimum rate is the one which fixes the minimum extent to which the duty may be lowered. If it is desired to make commercial treaties at any time, these two rates show the exact limits between which the treaty rates are to be fixed.

"The countries at present using the multiple or maximum and minimum tariff system are Spain, France, Russia, Brazil, Greece and Norway." After giving in some detail the tariff regulations in these countries under this system, the review goes on to discuss the "most-favored-nation clause."

"While all the European states since the sixties have given up the standpoint of conditional construction of the mostfavored-nation clause, the United States has held to this interpretation consistently. In the old commercial treaties with Prussia of 1828, and that of Austria of 1829, is found the regula

to

tion, 'If either party shall hereafter grant to any other nation any particular favor in navigation or commerce, it shall immediately become common the other party to whom such treatgranted to such other nation, or on yielding the same compensation, when the grant is conditional.' . . . In opposition to this construction of the clause is the one now accepted by the European countries, namely, that all favors given to a third state shall be at once, and without any return, given to the other party to whom such treatment is guaranteed. Thus a nation receiving this treatment now has the guaranty that its commercial intercourse cannot possibly be treated less favorably than that of any other country. That is, this construction has two properties (1) that any concession given to another country is at once, without delay, given to all other countries treated on this basis; and (2) these concessions are given without any compensation, even though it was secured by the first country in return for a specified and even costly concession. . The movement toward freer commercial intercourse, which was characteristic of the period beginning in the sixties, seized upon the most-favored-nation clause as an excellent means of obtaining greater freedom. If each country had only one tariff treaty which granted concessions from the regular tariff, it was only necessary to insert the mostfavored-nation clause in other treaties in order that all other countries might be placed in the enjoyment of the same favors. Thus, if a few important commercial treaties reduced the tariffs, a set of most-favored-nation treaties would automatically widen the scope of those treaties, and the general tariff would in this proportion lose in force, and the lower conventional tariff would become more general. The parties advocating freer commercial intercourse had only, therefore, to build up such a series of treaties, and the high tariff walls which had previously surrounded the countries would be more or less broken down."

This is followed by an extended discussion of the effects of this clause upon

the tariff systems of the several countries of Europe; and thus concludes: "There is a decided difference in the interpretation given to the clause in the United States. The latter country reserves to itself the right to give concessions only in return for certain favors, and likewise reserves to itself the right to decide whether favors offered by other countries are the equivalent of those received from a specified country. The United States is, therefore, in the position to use any system of tariff, either a conventional or general tariff, or a maximum or minimum tariff, without the disadvantages which the construction of the most-favored-nation clause imposes upon European countries."

There is a long review and discussion of the French maximum and minimum system, including the views of M. Leroy-Beaulieu on the subject; and also of the tariffs and commercial treaties of several countries. The treaties now in existence are divided into four classes:

1. Treaties with tariff agreements and with clauses providing for the mostfavored-nation treatment and fixing the rates of the tariff in their own general schedules, diminishing those rates or guaranteeing that they shall not be changed. 2. Treaties with tariff agreements, but without the most-favorednation clause, like those of the United States with France and Italy. 3. Treaties without tariff agreements, but with a most-favored-nation clause which represents the entire value of the treaty. Germany has twenty-eight such treaties. They are made in cases where the commercial intercourse between two countries is not extensive enough to make tariff agreements profitable. 4. Treaties with neither tariff agreements nor the most-favored-nation clause, and containing general regulations concerning the commerce between two states, and are made only with such countries as are partially open to European commerce. Of these four classes, that containing tariff agreements with the most-favored-nation clause, is regarded as of most interest at the present time, inasmuch as Germany presents

the most prominent example of this system. The author of this monograph says: "If Bismarck's statement that in every commercial treaty one of the two parties is taken in, but that no one can tell which party it is until some years afterwards, be true, then it does not seem that Germany has been the loser in the series of treaties which have been in force since 1892;" and this view is warranted by the fact that Germany has decided to continue this system in the future.

PORTO RICAN TRADE.

Though the United States has free trade with Porto Rico, it appears that our "great expectations" of monopolizing the trade of the island have not been realized. A correspondent writing from San Juan says: "Vast quantities of merchandise arrive here from Spain, France and Germany, and the steamers from these countries arriving weekly are loaded to the guards with freight. The imports from the United States are increasing rapidly, too, but they come chiefly to the Americans who are settling here as farmers or shopkeepers, the Puerto Ricans still purchasing largely abroad." That so much of the Porto Rican trade still goes to Europe, this correspondent says, is to a certain extent due to custom, but more largely due to the 12 months' credit system of the old-world countries as against the 60 days' credit allowed by the United States merchants. It is evident that the Puerto Rican knows a good thing in the line of credit when he sees it.

IT is said that as there are no sugar beet raisers in Maine, there is no occasion for Mr. Littlefield to be interested in their protection. But if the doctrine is to obtain that no congressman is to vote for a protective duty unless it benefits some industry in his own district, the whole system will soon be in ruins.-Portland Press.

PROGRESS IN PORTO RICO.

BY WALTER J. BALLARD.

Porto Rico, the "Pearl of the Antilles," is rightly named. It is a "rich gate" of opportunity through which American capital, American enterprise and American education (the world's chief civilizer) are entering to great advantage. Not only advantage to ourselves, but equally so to the natives of the island who are adapting themselves so readily to the benefits of American rule. In what we have done for Porto Rico so far we have been "building better than we knew." The day is now upon us on which we have to take up the control and energizing of another new people-the three islands and numerous islets of the Danish West Indies, only a few miles distant from Porto Rico. If thought best by the administration at Washington, all we need do is to say to Governor Hunt of Porto Rico and his American associates, "Your administrative territory is enlarged," and the problem is practically solved at the start.

Porto Rico will also be of immense value to us as a base of supplies and a strategical point in connection with our proposed isthmian canal, through which, in a very few years, half the commerce of the world will pass, and by means vigorous

the of which

Atlantic will be wedded to his fair Pacific bride. When the day of that happy marriage arrives Porto Rico will be "best man" and Hawaii the charming bridesmaid, while the newly united waters will flow on to kiss their sister of the Orient-the Philippines-not forgetting little Guam on the way.

Leaving the future and turning to the present, let us see how Porto Rico is fitting herself for the responsibility which will undoubtedly be hers in the near future. Is she making headway along American lines of progress, or only hanging on to us to be cared for as if she were an unpromising child?

By the courtesy of Governor Hunt the writer is enabled to append the following up-to-date figures, which, speaking

that it is only a little more than three and one-half years ago since the Stars and Stripes was first given to the Porto Ricans as their banner of liberty and progress. The figures clearly show that Mr. McKinley, to whom Porto Rico owes so much, did a very wise thing for ourselves as well as for Porto Rico when he opened our markets free to her products. Note the very large increase in our purchases of tobacco and sugar. We must not forget that it is as important to us to buy of our own people as it is to sell to other peoples. Detailed comment on the figures is not necessary. The record is simply progress, progress, all along the line.

cent; average number of wage earners 29,161, the total wages paid being $7,109,821, an increase of two per cent; value of products $103,754,362, an increase of fifty-eight per cent; miscellaneous expenses amounted to $47,533,705, an increase of 144 per cent.

In the stemming and rehandling trade there are 276 establishments, a decrease of five per cent since 1890; capital invested $12,526,808, an increase of 118 per cent; total number of employees 9654, an increase of sixty-one per cent; wages paid $1,817,067, an increase of sixty-one per cent; miscellaneous expenses $525,016, or twentyfour per cent; total value of products $19,099,032, increase eighteen per cent.

TOBACCO MANUFACTURING

STATISTICS.

The Census Office has issued a preliminary report regarding the manufacture of tobacco in the United States, which shows the number of establishments to be 15,252, an increase of thirty-one per cent over 1890; capital invested $124,089,871, an increase of twenty-nine per cent; average number of wage earners 142,277, the wages amounting to $49,852,484, an increase of twelve per cent; total value of products, including custom work and repairing $283,876,546. Miscellaneous expenses are placed at $79,495,422, an increase of 111 per cent over 1890.

The number of establishments engaged in the manufacture of cigars and cigarettes is 14,539, an increase of thirty-three per cent over 1890; capital invested $67,706,493; persons employed in the work number 107,402, drawing wages amounting to $40,925,596, an increase of twelve per cent, and of nineteen per cent in number of employees; miscellaneous expenses $31,436,701; value of products, including custom work and repairing $160,223,152.

The number of establishments manufacturing chewing and smoking tobacco and snuff is stated to be 437; an increase of ten per cent; capital invested $43,856,570, an increase of forty-two per

SHOE INDUSTRY STATISTICS.

The Census Bureau has issued a preliminary report regarding the manufacture of boots and shoes, factory product, in the United States in 1900. The figures, with percentage of increase or decrease since 1890, follow: Number of establishments 1000; decrease 23 per cent. Capital $101,795,233; increase 7 per cent. Wage earners' average number 142,922; increase 7 per cent. Total wages $59,175,883; decrease 3 per cent. Miscellaneous expenses $10,766,402; increase 17 per cent. Amount paid for contract work $1,751,948; increase 3 per cent. Cost of materials used $169,604,054; increase 43 per cent. Total value of products $261,028,580; increase 18 per cent. Boots and shoes, for men, youths and boys, number of pairs 89.123.318; increase 32 per cent; value $129,505,235; increase 33 per cent. Boots and shoes, for women, misses and children, number of pairs 107,415,855; increase 1 per cent; value $112,823,914; decrease 2 per cent. Slippers for men, youths and boys, number of pairs 4,456,965; value $2,812,213; slippers, Oxfords and low cuts for women, misses and children, number of pairs 12,655,876; value $10,146,393. All other products $5,740,825; decrease 23 per cent.

FOREIGN PRICE OF AMERI

CAN STEEL RAILS.

O a correspondent who asks if it

is not a fact that the United States Steel Corporation has been selling rails abroad at eleven dollars per ton less than its American price, and what remedy would be effective to prevent this discrimination, Gunton's Magazine makes the following answer:

"Our correspondent's first question suggests the conundrum that is said to have been propounded by Charles II to a coterie of his advisers, namely, 'Why does a pail of water weigh less with a fish in it than without? They all puzzled their brains. to answer why, when one of them stumbled on the happy thought to ask, Does it? When tested by the scales, of course it was found that it did not.

"Before we proceed to devise a means to prevent the United States Steel Corporation from selling steel rails in England $11 less per ton than in the American market, we would better ask the question, Does it? This statement has been bandied around but has never been verified. It is probably not true, and for the best of all reasons, that it is not at all necessary. States Steel Corporation has more orders for steel rails than it can fill. Its management, therefore, would have to be greatly lacking in business sense to sell rails in Europe at $17 a ton, when it can get $28 in the United States for all it can make.

The United

Moreover, the regular prevailing English price is not more than $2 a ton less than the American, hence to sell at $11 less would be idiocy.

"In his testimony last summer before the industrial commission, Mr. Byron W. Holt, secretary of the New York Reform Club, said something of this kind, but instead of giving the facts to prove it, he evaded the responsibility by saying he was not at liberty to reveal the source of his information. Before we ask the administration to legislate against a certain practice, we are bound to prove that the practice complained of actually exists. In this case it probably does not."

WHY has New Britain become the first town of Connecticut, and hence in the world, in inventive activity? The fact, Since whatever the explanation, is so.

the United States patent laws were enacted 1,447 inventions have been patented by 344 New Britainers. Within a ten-year period one patent was granted each year for every 367 inhabitants of the town-nearly three times as many as the general average for all Connecticut. As the most inventive town in the world New Britain piques curiosity. "Necessity is the mother of invention," but it is not known that New Britain has ever felt the spur of necessity more sharply than the rest of Connecticut or

the United States. The town's remarkable inventive record should be investigated.-New York World.

Eugene F. Ware of Kansas has been selected by the President to succeed H. Clay Evans as Commissioner of Pensions. Mr. Ware is from Topeka, Kansas, and is a lawyer. He was a captain in the Union army.