(Correspondence AMERICAN ECONOMIST.) WASHINGTON, D. C., June 22.-The remarkable assault upon the Protective system, which was made by President Havemeyer of the Sugar Trust in his testimony before the Industrial Commission, attracted some attention among friends of the policy of Protection here. Without exception the comment among the few public men who remain at the capital during the heated term was that Mr. Havemeyer would have great difficulty in convincing the public that he is right in asserting that Protection fostered trusts, and that the Free-Trade shouters would find considerable trouble in making profitable use of the Sugar Trust president's vituperative remarks as a part of the anti-Protection campaign literature for the next Presidential contest.

Protectionists in Washington, as elsewhere throughout the country, have been able to see through the thin veil which Havemeyer supposed would hide his real motives in assailing the Protective system. He feels that the Republican supporters of the Protective policy are not going into a defense of trusts which monopolize any field of production, so he can hope for no assistance from Protectionists in upholding his peculiar kind of trust. Moreover, it is so perfectly apparent that the animus of Havemeyer's attack upon Protection is the rage he feels because the Protectionists have given encouragement to the production of sugar in this country by customs duties levied upon raw sugar. This fact, coupled with the admitted attitude of the trust president in hostility toward the Protective system, except to the extent that it has been effective in benefiting in some degree the general business of sugar refining, explains very clearly why Havemeyer

tells the world that ten per cent. of Protective duties are sufficient in any and all cases.

Among the few Protection Senators in the city at present is Senator Thomas H. Carter of Montana. In response to a request by the AMERICAN ECONOMIST correspondent for an expression on the Havemeyer outburst, Senator Carter said:

'Yes, I observe that Mr. Havemeyer, the commanding genius of the American Sugar Trust, declares himself opposed to the Protective Tariff. In so doing he discloses a spirit of patriotism and philanthropy very creditable and eminently worthy of the source. In his testimony he declared, in substance, before the Industrial Commission, that the Protective Tariff was the foster mother of the trust; that it really assisted in creating and maintaining the whole family of trusts, regardless of their special fields of operation. In view of this statement how truly touching and pathetic it is to observe the heroic attitude of Mr. Havemeyer when he announces his opposition to the Protective system. He manifestly desires the unwary to believe that he earnestly seeks the destruction of his own property in the Sugar Trust by having the Protective Tariff destroyed. I have no doubt that Mr. Havemeyer is opposed to the Protective Tariff system, but his opposition does not arise from the belief in his mind that Protection to American labor and American industries constitutes the vitalizing force behind the Sugar Trust. If he believed that system was necessary or useful in the operation of the Sugar Trust he would undoubtedly defend its continuance instead of counseling its repeal.

The fact is the Protective Tariff system has for its underlying purpose the creation of diversified industries throughout the entire country. In the execution of this purpose the Dingley Tariff law, against which Mr. Havemeyer pronounces so strongly, contemplated by its provisions the development of the beet sugar industry in the United States, and the sugar schedule was arranged with a special view to the accomplishment of that end. The framers of the law have not been disappointed. The beet sugar industry has been steadily growing, and it is against the continuance of this growth that Mr. Havemeyer directs his opposition.

"The American Sugar Trust can destroy any single aggregation of capital invested in a competing business at any particular point in the country by selling sugar below cost within the legitimate limits of its competitor's market. With the small beet sugar manufactories scattered all over the country, the trust cannot compete with the same advantage, because it would be compelled by virtue of the widely scattered compe

tition to reduce the price of sugar everywhere below the cost of production. While Mr. Havemeyer could destroy one competitor at one place, he finds it impossible to destroy fifty or one hundred competitors at fifty or one hundred different places. The beet sugar manufactories will inevitably command the sugar market of this country in due course of time. Mr. Havemeyer understands this very well, and it is but natural that he should direct his opposition to the Protective Tariff system under which the beet sugar manufactories are being constructed and operated so successfully. The position of his large sugar company is not dissimilar from the position of one of the largest snakes of the tropics.

"It is said that the large reptiles do not fear any of the animals of the country, being able to strangle the stoutest of them to death, but have a mortal dread of the red ants, because, whenever an abrasion occurs to the skin of the snake these small industrious insects begin to operate upon the body of the reptile, and finally destroy its life."

It is only necessary to say in connection with this expression by Senator Carter that it does not come from one of the so-called "representatives of the trust-fed robber-barons of the effete East," but from a loyal friend of the Protection policy, whose home is in the Far West. Senator Carter is a representative of the stalwart Protectionists of the intermountain district, a region that has reaped substantial benefits from the Protection policy, and whose people have come to understand that Protection is good for the country regardless of geographical lines; that the wool-growers of the Montana plains are as much entitled to Protection from the unequal competition of wool produced under inferior conditions abroad, as the woolen manufacturer of the East is entitled to Protection for his industry.

Attention should also be called to the fact that Senator Carter is a representative Republican Protectionist. Only a few years ago he was chairman of the Republican National Committee, and his labors in the cause of Protection have been felt in and out of the United States Senate. He is a friend of the beet sugar producers of the West, and he is not slow to perceive the “fly in the ointment," which troubles Mr. Havemeyer.

One of the leading friends of the Protection cause here, who did not wish to be quoted on the subject of Havemeyer's outburst of rage and chagrin, at least until the opportunity is presented for taking up the subject in detail, called attention to the political phases of the present situation. He said:

"It is an Interesting situation in

American politics when we see Mr. Bryan, Andrew Carnegie and Mr. Havemeyer, the head of the Sugar Trust, all enlisted in opposition to the party of Protection. While they give different reasons for arriving at the same general result, it is observed that they unite in opposing the Protection party. In the case of Mr. Bryan, the reasons are obvious. In the case of Mr. Carnegie, it may be because he has made enough out of the advantages which have accrued to the iron and steel industries of the Unted States, under adequate and continuous Protection, to enable him now to retire and spend his time in philosophical reflections upon the international policies of the United States Government. As for Mr. Havemeyer, he is at heart a Grover Cleveland Cobdenite, but really hostile to the Protective system because it has not given the Sugar Trust the benefits of free raw materials and good stiff Protection on the finished product."

When the batteries of sterling Protectionists are trained on the Havemeyer testimony it will be shot so full of holes it will look like a fish net. In his remarkable denunciation of the Protective system he has gone further than any Democratic Cobdenite would, in moments of sanity and care, dare to go. He denounces all customs duties above ten per cent.; yet he really thinks the sugar industry as represented by the refining business alone should have at least ten per cent. of Protection, instead of the present lower rate. This is an admission that, with all its alleged activity in breeding trusts, Protection in its maternal capacity described by Mr. Havemeyer has not done so much for the Sugar Trust as he thinks it should have done.

Now the fact is, as everybody knows who has been in Washington while a Tariff bill was under consideration in the halls of Congress, that the Protectionists have been importuned by the Havemeyers, and others of the trust brood, to increase the customs rates on refined sugar, and give free raw material. This policy, if adopted as the sugar kings desired, would fasten the Sugar Trust upon the throats of the AmerIcan people in a manner beside which the present situation is but a play-spell time. It has been a study of the Republican Protectionists in both branches of Congress how to keep down the duties on refined sugar to the lowest possible mark consistent with the desire that the refineries in this country should not be subjected to ruinous competition from refineries in foreign countries; no more, no less. The recent policy of levying duties upon raw sugar, which really troubles Havemeyer, was the result of a desire for more revenue, which was known to be necessary when the Ding

ley law was framed, and also the general desire among Protectionists to give substantial Protection to the beet sugar industry in this country.

"Mr. Havemeyer should post up on the facts of history," said a Western Republican representative here. "He ought to know that the first trust organized in this country was back in 1857, that era of pure delight to the Free-Trader, when our Tariff rates were low and our national prosperity at a correspondingly low ebb."

The general opinion here is that Mr. Havemeyer should be recalled by the Industrial Commission, and given further opportunity to testify. Clearly he has in his possession other facts and fancies which should be disclosed to the world. He should tell the country what industries have been formed in this country to control articles that are admitted free of duty, and upon which the Protective system exercises not the slightest degree of restraint. He should inform the people if the Sugar Trust could thrive and wax fatter if the customs duties were entirely removed from sugar of every grade, or if, on the contrary, only the smaller, independent refineries would be compelled to close, and the Sugar Trust would secure a firmer grip on the American markets, with the additional advantage of free raw material. He should inform the country what trust enterprises thrive in Great Britain on articles that are admitted into that kingdom free of all duty. He should have further opportunity to tell the people whether the Protection policy, in giving the fullest possible encouragement to independent industry in this country, thereby giving Americans of push, capital and brains opportunity to engage in productive enterprises, is more of a foster mother of trusts and combinations than would be his declared policy of combinations, the stifling of independent action and all individualism, thus turning the people over to the greed of an organized appetite for absolute control of the markets of the country.

Better Make It Unanimous. The nomination and re-election of President McKinley is assured, and if there be any other Republican who cherished hopes that lightning might strike him, he may as well take in his lightning rod at once and join the McKinley procession. Next year is going to be a McKinley year that will far eclipse 1896, and there will be so little opposition to the President that he will be practically elected unanimously. The leaders are for him and the rank and file have always been for him, and what more could he ask of the American peo ple?-Harrisburg (Pa.) "Telegraph."

HOPELESSLY IN THE WRONG.

An English View of Canada's Attitude on the Log Question.

[Manchester Guardian.]

Where Canada is utterly and hopelessly in the wrong in her relations with the United States is in the lumber legislation of the Ontario province. Some years ago the Ontario Government invited the Michigan lumbermen who had exhausted their own supplies of timber to purchase forest lands on the north side of Lake Huron. Some three millions of acres were purchased in response to this invitation by the Michigan lumbermen, who fell the Canadian timber and then float it across the lake to their old sawmills ou American soil. When the Dingley bill was under consideration it was feared that Canada might retaliate by imposing an export duty on this timber; it was therefore enacted that if such a duty was imposed a corresponding addition should be made to the import duty in the United States. The imposition of an export duty on the timber floated across the lake was thus rendered impossible, in view of the interests of Canadian lumbermen elsewhere. What the Ontario Government did was to pass a law forbidding the exportation of any logs from Ontario. This was a blow which fell almost entirely on the Michigan lumbermen, who were thus prohibited from floating the timber from the lands they had purchased from the Ontario Government to their sawmills on the south side of the lake. Its practical effect was to confiscate all the capital which the lumbermen from Michigan had invested in Canada at the invitation of the Ontario Government. "A Canadian Liberal," in the "North American Review," cal's this the most unjustifiable enactment placed upon the statute book of any American State, Saxon or Spanish, in the last generation; and he is not far wrong.

In the United States, as long ago as 1890, a Republican Congress passed an anti-trust law. The layman who reads it will come to the conclusion that it is a very strong law. Whether it is or not, no Democratic Congress has undertaken to make it more effective. Indeed, the theory of Free-Trade is to let trade take care of itself. It is the doctrine of go as you please. On the other hand, all anti-trust legislation of a national character, and all in most the States. is the work of Republicans. -Indianapolis (Ind.) "Journal."

The assurance that McKinley and Hobart will be renominated gives stability to business. There will be no attacks upon the business or finances of the people for more than four years. -Jersey City (N. J.) "Journal."

Hon. W. B. Allison, chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, replies as follows to a request that he favor the AMERICAN ECONOMIST with an expression of his views regarding H. O. Havemeyer's unique exhibit before the Industrial Commission:

DUBUQUE, IA., June 17, 1899.-It will be impossible for me, with the work I have in hand, to undertake at present to digest the testimony of Mr. Havemeyer. Mr. Have

meyer's statement is a general statement in line with the views of the Democratic party. I have been curious to know where we would secure revenue to carry on the Government with the average 10 per cent. ad valorem duties on imports. W. B. ALLISON.

It was a warm day in Washington when the Sugar Trust magnate gave in his remarkable testimony, and large men are unfavorably affected by ex

treme heat. Mr. Havemeyer is a large man. Upon this occasion evidences of abnormal temperature under the collar were quite noticeable. Contributory to this condition, doubtless, was the fact so frankly admitted that in his efforts before the Ways and Means Committee to have raw sugar placed on the free list Mr. Havemeyer was wholly unsuccessful. Equally abortive, according to Mr. Havemeyer, was the attempt to secure a duty on refined sugar of a quarter of a cent per pound, and the refining industry was forced to struggle along with a duty of approximately one-half as much. How ably the Sugar Trust has contrived to struggle on this basis is attested by the fat dividends declared each year since its organization in 1887 under the Free-Trade administration of Grover Cleveland. But that is another story.

In the wilting, chafing heat of that committee room in Washington Mr. Havemeyer experienced a rise in temperature, and his mental thermometer showed several degrees higher than that which registered the state of the surrounding atmosphere. There is no record of pulse, but it must have been very fast and irregular.

Thus it was that Mr. Havemeyer started out with the propositions that will live in history as the products of extreme heat-first, that "The Tariff is the mother of trusts;" second, that "An ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. would be ample for Protection of all American industries." It was a cry full of rage and vengeance such as the blind Samson felt when he pulled down the pillars of the temple of the Philistines. Whom the gods would destroy they first make hot, and Mr. Havemeyer was hot all through.

Should the American people take Mr. Havemeyer at his word there would shortly be an end to all trusts, for he has presented the trust in a light far more odious than that in which it has been viewed by all save those who hold that "capital is robbery." But the American people will not take Mr. Havemeyer at his word either as to the Tariff's maternal responsibilities concerning trusts or his blundering estimate of 10 per cent. as adequately Protective of all domestic industries. The people know better as to both propositions. They know that the Protective Tariff produces work, wages, prosperity, happiness for the millions who toil for their daily bread, and they know that trusts flourish in Free-Trade countries as well as in Protection countries. They also know what would happen if Mr. Havemeyer's vindictive plan of a 10 per cent. duty should be carried into effect-namely, that American industry would be paralyzed and ninetenths of the wage earners of this coun

The Late J. W. A. Cluett.

A conspicuous figure in one of America's leading industries has disappeared through the death, in Troy, N. Y., June 3, 1899, of J. W. A. Cluett, the head of the largest linen collar manufacturing house in the world. Besides winning a commanding position in that important industry, Mr. Cluett found time to interest himself actively alike in national and local affairs. He was one of Troy's most prominent citizens, and a member of THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE. His loss will be by the last named organization felt and deplored, as it will be by a large circle of personal friends and business associates.

Mr. Cluett was a native of Wolverhampton, England, and a son of William Cluett, the founder of the music firm of Cluett & Sons of Troy. He was connected with the firms of Maullin & Blanchard and Maullin & Bigelow between the years 1852 and 1857. From 1857 to 1863 he was associated with his father in the music business, but retired to take up the collar business again in 1863. In that year the firm of George B. Cluett, Brother & Co. was organized, with George B. Cluett, J. W. A. Cluett and Charles J. Saxe as members. 1880 the factory was destroyed by fire and a new location was found in 1881, and the first of the five factories which compose the plant in River street was erected. The present plant is the largest of its kind in the world. Mr. Cluett was connected with many religious and educational interests, and was a popular platform speaker.

In