trade ideal. Touching upon what then seemed a remote possibility, but which is now a stern reality with us, Professor Taussig said: "A war between the great countries, such as is always possible and often seems imminent, would greatly hamper foreign trade, conceivably destroy it. The greater the previous extension of trade the more complete the overturn of commerce, and he who looks on war as sooner or later inevitable and perhaps as not unwelcome is not loth to have the industries of his country as self-contained and as selfdependent as possible."

But the most amazing part perhaps of this address is the suggestion of “a United States of the World as free from barriers against each other as the states of our Union are free in mutual trade!" And is it for that this country is to spend, if necessary, all of its wealth and many precious lives? Is it for the privilege of presenting the most highly prized market of the world to all other industrial rivals and to admit them into unrestricted competition with all the advantages in their favor, against our own industries, upon which we would have to depend in times of stress for food and supplies for our people and our defenders? Are we to fight for the privilege of making ourselves the economic, as well as the political, vassals of a tyrannical government dominating the world? Are we to fight for the liberty to make ourselves dependent upon that country for the manufactures we need? Has not the experience of the past few years made evident the extreme folly of any nation

allowing itself to be dependent upon other countries for food and supplies needed to preserve the lives of its citizens and the safety of the nation. itself? The millennium is not yet here, though it may not be far distant, and until that time comes when all selfishness and all concern for the welfare of our country and our own people shall vanish, the dream of these free trade gentlemen, will receive the scant consideration the proposal they advanced merits.

APPLYING PROTECTION TO BRITISH AGRICULTURE.

By John S. Hodgson

The June number of The Protectionist reproduces, under the heading "A Self-Sufficing Nation," an article from The Independent, emphasizing the importance of local self-sufficiency as a lesson inculcated by the

war.

After pointing out, what is only partly true, that "the issue of the war is now turning on whether England or Germany is self-supporting," the writer justly assails the economic policy which has resulted in Great Britain's dependence upon foreign supplies for for "five-sixths of her bread," and then lapses into reflections which it is difficult to justify in the light of contemporary events. This applies more particularly to the assertion that, "if England had followed Lloyd George's advice, the ducal estates would have been broken up into small farms and the vast game preserves would now be raising food."

It would be interesting to know through what channels or processes the writer of these words expects such results to accrue from the breaking up of large estates into tenancies. As a matter of fact, that condition has existed for centuries, the rentals paid by British tenant farmers being the principal item of "ducal" or other landed revenues. In spite of this, it was found impossible, under the growth of artificial conditions which included the opening up of American prairie lands and the establishment of cheap land and ocean transportation for grain and cattle, to grow cereals, wheat in particular, at a profit in Great Britain. This was demonstrated even after large reductions in rentals had been made in the effort to maintain arable cultivation. The chief factor leading to that conclusion was Britain's obstinate adherence to her so-called "Free Trade" policy, long after the time when its initial benefits had been obliterated by new conditions. A country in which the capital value of agricultural land was reduced to the extent of 49.6 per cent between 1875 and 1894, and which allowed 3,835,000 acres of arable land to be converted into comparatively worthless pasture between 1872 and 1913, must expect to reap the consequences and, in the long run, be driven to seek a remedy.

That remedy, by the irony of fate, has been tentatively discovered by Mr. Lloyd George, not in his chosen. capacity as a scourge of landowners at least as deserving of consideration. as owners of other property, but as Prime Minister during a period of unprecedented danger to the Empire.

No longer concerned with the breaking up of estates, "ducal" or other, he has been compelled to devise means for the breaking up and cultivation of land long untouched by the plough. The incentive relied upon to bring about this revolution is simply a practical recognition of what British agricultural authorities have long known and vainly endeavored to enforce in opposition to the Lloyd George creed. With the British wheat grower guaranteed, at the expense of the British taxpayer, if necessary, an initial maximum price of $1.77 per U. S. bushel for the present year, gradually falling to $1.33 in 1922, a large area of land is again coming under cultivation with an assurance that the heavy first cost of conversion will be recouped in later years.

It may be noted, in this connection, that the farmer's annual net profits per acre from arable and grass land have been estimated at $10.47 and $3.65 respectively, even with wheat selling at 95 cents per U. S. bushel -a price far short of even the lowest rate established by the Lloyd George ministry. No one doubts, of course, that if other measures are found necessary, after 1922, to keep up this cultivation, beneficial as it is to landowner, farmer and nation alike, such. measures will be adopted. That will be done even if it be necessary to abandon the decision arrived at before the war, to exempt food stuffs. from the import duties even then contemplated by the late Joseph Chamberlain's adherents.

As regards the "vast game preserves" referred to in the article un

der discussion-a subject on which much exaggeration prevails in America-it may be safely assumed that, given the certainty of augmented profits under the conditions now being restored, many of these will disappear in favor of commercially practicable tillage. This class of

tenure will then be confined to areas either too high, too remote or otherwise incapable of profitable cultivation except under an intolerable and unnecessary increase of protection, for protection, after all, is what Mr. Lloyd George's present method

amounts to.

London, June 15, 1917.

It is not fully recognized that Japan is gradually changing from an agricultural to an industrial country. The great expansion of her foreign trade since 1914 is shown by the official returns of her trade in 1916. During that year the total value of imports was 756,500,000 yen, being an increase of 224,000,000, while the exports for the same period amounted to 1,127,500,000 yen, being an increase of about 419,000,000 yen. The actual excess of exports over imports for the year was 371,000,000 yen, as compared with 170,000,000 yen for 1915. The changed position which has taken place since the beginning of the war, may be seen from the fact that for the year 1914 there was actually an excess in the value of the im

ports over exports of about 4,500,000 yen.

Cotton manufacture is one of her principal industries and the statistics show that the average number of spindles working daily in Japan in 1914 (the latest available year) was nearly nearly 2,500,000. Wool manufac

ture was not carried on before the war to any great extent, but it has now received a considerable impetus, and Japanese factories are executing orders from the Russian government. The production of iron and steelboth in government and private works -has also been very considerable, the best iron ores being imported from China. Japan has some 600,000 tons of shipping now under construction and the industry is in a flourishing condition. Her merchant marine con

sists of 2170 steamers of 1,704,785 tons, and 9187 sailing ships of 572,403 tons. Ocean-going steamers exceeding 1000 tons number 448, with a total tonnage of 1,428,212 tons. Thirty-nine ocean-going steamers of 140,236 tons were launched from Japanese yards in 1916.

I may add that Japan is now investigating the possibility of using American cotton-spinning machinery in their mills. The extent of purchases already decided on is estimated at 200,000 spindles.

How her credit stands may be seen from the fact that her 4 1-2 per cent loan is quoted on the London Stock Exchange at 91 1-2, yielding at that price interest of nearly 5 per cent. Great Britain's 4 1-2 per cent loan is quoted at 92 1-4, so we see how the relative positions of the two countries have changed since 1914. Before that fateful time no one would have dreamed of comparing the two credits!

How then is this power going to be used in the coming years, because it seems impossible that the race can be confined to Japan itself? Where is the outlet to be? Although outwardly the differences between Japan and the United States have been composed, yet the issue which lay behind those differences over California has not been disposed of. So far from this it is probably destined to become one of the greatest problems of this country, and as the years pass it will become insistent. The claim is for the Asiatic race to mingle and live on equal terms with the white race. That can only be done by the Asiatic casting aside his ideals, his mode of living, and the

conditions of his life; in a word, to cease to be an Oriental. Whether that can ever be is hard to say, but the very beginning of the reformation is not yet in sight. Only superficial people are deceived by the veneer of civilization which has covered the Japanese people. It takes ages not centuries to change racial distinctions. Now it is Japan which claims preferential treatment over other colored peoples. As China advances she, too, will make the same demand; while in India we are faced with a claim by the educated natives for equal treatment and advantages. The few Japanese and Chinese you have in the United States are a mere handfula vanguard, so to speak-of this great human movement. Year by year piles up the pressure against the floodgates; the only question is, Where are they going to be opened? Where is the weakest spot in the wall? Discussing this problem some time before the war, Mr. Lovat Fraser, a recognized authority on the question, said: "What, then, will happen? Two things-In the first place, the yellow races will persist in their demand for greater equality of treatment, not necessarily accompanied by any new right to enter lands which are not theirs. They will base their request upon their adoption of Western civilization and methods of government, though while adopting Western forms their ancient spirit remains unchanged. We may be absolutely certain that the yellow races will not forever sit down tamely and endure the spurning they have hitherto received. They will not retaliate, but they will follow the line of least re

sistance. South America will not sufficiently serve their purposes. In my belief, when they have amassed enough wealth and armaments, they will ultimately profess to have found the outlet they desire in the Australian continent. Australia and not Western America seems destined to become the scene of the next phase of that interminable conflict between Europe and Asia, between the white races on the one hand and the brown and yellow races on the other, which is the oldest and most persistent factor in human history. The entire present population of the Australian Commonwealth could be comfortably and prosperously established in the Northern Rivers district of New South Wales, which is only just being opened up. The rich coastal belt of Northern Australia, with its deep rivers, fine harbors, and unfailing rainfall, could maintain thirty millions of people. Its present inhabitants number less than a thousand white folk. At its present rate of progress, Australia will not a century hence have population enough to stem the flood of a yellow invasion. Fleets in the North Sea cannot stop it. The only chance for Australia's salvation will be if the mastery of the Pacific passes into the hands of the United States, and that is an issue which may have to be fought out first."

Mr. Lovat Fraser is not alone in taking this view. A few months ago a remarkable letter appeared in a great London daily newspaper from a correspondent in the Commonwealth, stating that Australians of all classes were thinking "steadily, seriously and anxiously over their future.

relations with Japan. A great and deep change has come over their feelings towards the Japanese. Prior to the war Australians would have thought of the position with dread. Today it is accepted gratefully as part and parcel of the consequences of the concentration of Australia's own warships in European and Eastern waters. . . . The whole problem is now narrowing down to one of terms. Already Japanese manufacturers have quadrupled their their exports to the Commonwealth. Ships which in the past averaged a cargo of 450 tons now bring to Sydney 2500 tons. The Japanese have captured a great deal of the trade once firmly held by American, British, German and French exporters. In the silk market they have won the premier position, and Australian shops are now filled to overflowing with cheap Japanese silks. The following Japanese goods are now sold with great success in the Australian market: Glasses, scientific instruments, silks, Panama hats, cottons, toys, insulators, electric light apparatus, camphor, sulphur oil, matches, basketware, rubber tires, bottles, porcelain."

F. C. Chappell.

JAPAN A COMPETITOR.

Under the encouragement of the Underwood law, the business men of Japan are sending into this country an average of $600,000 worth of goods every day. Wages in Japan are about as low as they are anywhere in the world. Every workingman can understand that the importance of $600,000 worth of Japanese products