and direct taxation is raised by a way that the people can understand, and in which they may check extravagance and exact accountability from the officers chosen by themselves for this duty.

The revenue for national expenditures is paid to the government directly through custom houses, by importers, in the form of duties, but it is finally paid by the people in an enormously increased cost of the necessaries of life; this increase is not for the benefit of the government, but is an indirect tax wrung out of the many for the support and protection of private enterprises.

No one among us raises a question regarding the necessity for paying all the expenses of government, but it is of the utmost importance that taxation for this purpose shall be in harmony with purely republican principles, and shall be confined to this specific purpose. The power delegated to the government to raise taxes, if honestly and intelligently exercised, will be a source of national strength; if ignorantly or corruptly exercised, it will be an element of destruction. It is not taxation to which the people object, but to the injustice and extravagance which grow out of any system that fosters dishonesty and corruption, and which culminates into a centralization of despotic power.

We are on the threshold of a new century; shall we on entering it be willing to have all the great interests of the country imperiled by continuing in the course thus far pursued, or shall we seek to adopt principles of taxation that will eradicate the elements of destruction and ensure renewed strength and life, making it in truth a government of the whole people, by the whole people, for the whole people, for all coming time.

THE NATIONAL IDEA AND THE AMERICAN SYSTEM.

BY PROFESSOR W. G. SUMNER.

It is a sign of a dogma in dissolution to change its form and to yield points of detail, while striving to guard its vested interests and traditional advantages. Just now the dogma of protection is striving to find standing ground, after a partial retreat, for a new defense, in the doctrine of nationality. We are told that there is only a "national" and not a "political" economy, that there are no universal laws of exchange, consequently no science of political economy; that it is only an art, and has only an empirical foundation, and that it varies with national circumstances to such a degree as to be controlled by nothing higher than traditional policy or dogmatic assumption. Great comfort is found for this position in the assertion that the German economists have discovered

or adopted its truth. How utterly unjust and untrue this is as a matter of fact, those who have read the works of the German economists must know. It is untrue, in the first place, that they are unanimously of the school of the socialistes en chaire, and, in the second place, it is untrue that the socialistes en chaire are clear and unanimous in their position. They occupy every variety of position, from extreme willingness to entrust the state with judgment in the application of economical prescriptions, to the greatest conservatism in that regard. Finally, it is not true that any of them are protectionists.

We do not intend, however, to discuss the opinion or authority of the schools in question. If it should be claimed that the extreme admission made by some of the Germans of this school, that protection may be beneficial to a nation at a certain stage of development, is applicable to the United States to-day, we should desire no better footing for the controversy.

It is more directly interesting, however, to examine the doctrine of nationality on its merits. It will appear upon even a cursory examination of this kind, that existing nations are arbitrary and traditional divisions.. There was published in Europe, in 1863, when the Emperor Napoleon was urging on an attempt to secure stable equilibrium in European politics by adjusting political divisions according to race and language divisions, a map of Europe thus rationally constructed. The effort, however, offered the most striking proof of the impossibility of reconstructing, on any such rationalistic or logical basis, political circumstances. which are the historical outgrowth of political struggles and political accidents. The nations which must be made the subject of discussion are, therefore, such as exist, and of them it is true that their boundaries coincide with no lines of race, language, culture, industry, commerce, or anything else which would give the basis of scientific classification, so that different principles could be consistently applied in each. There was a time, indeed, when the civil subdivisions were small and numerous—when manners, customs, costumes and language varied over every hundred square miles of Europe-but the whole tendency of the great inventions of modern times is to obliterate these boundary lines for purposes of industry and trade.

It is not necessary to go into the history of Europe for proofs and illustrations. The very best are furnished by our own continent and our own nation. The geographical area known to-day as the United States is the result of discovery, conquest and purchase. It would have been impossible a century ago to constitute an empire of such extent, and to govern it according to the requirements of modern life. The improvements in transportation and the transmission of intelligence have made it physically possible, and the combination of local institutions with a centralized organization has made it politically possible.

When we turn to inquire, however, why it has been limited just as

it has, why Canada and Mexico are outside, and why Texas, California and Alaska are within, we come at once to the historical antecedents which are partly accidents and partly ancient struggles and hostilities. Canada was never made thoroughly English before the revolutionary war; while it was French it was always hostile to the English colonies. This hostility was traditional, and there was no sympathy with the revolution. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were largely peopled by the Tory refugees, whom the unwise severity of the Whigs forced to emigrate during and after the war. Texas was won from Mexico in war. California and the other Pacific States were obtained partly by conquest and partly by purchase. A few years ago we discussed a plan for purchasing San Domingo. Out of these historical movements, part of which fell out one way and part the other, the actual geographical limits of the United States result.

Now, according to the Constitution of the United States, no one of these States can make any laws restricting commerce between itself and any of the others. If it be asserted that states which pursue different industries cannot afford to trade freely with one another, here we have them-New York and Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Minnesota, Maine and Louisana. If it be asserted that states with like industries cannot afford to trade freely with one another, here we have them-Indiana and Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Alabama and Mississippi. If it be said that small States cannot afford to trade freely with great empires, here are New York and Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Delaware. Why do not the great states suck the life out of the small ones? If it be said that new states with little capital, and on the first stage of culture, cannot afford to exchange freely with old states having large capital and advanced social organization, here are New York and Oregon, Massachusetts and Idaho. How can any territories ever grow into states under the pressure? If it be said that a state which relies on one industry cannot afford to exchange freely with one which has a diversified industry, here are Pennsylvania and Colorado, California and Nevada, any of the cotton states and any of the north-eastern states. No such strong illustrations are furnished by any states in the world. which are sovereign and independent of each other. The Constitution of the Union enforces absolute freedom of exchanges, and each state pays its own taxes and supports its own government. The traveler rarely knows when he passes from one state to another. As to what he buys or where he buys, what he sells or where he sells, it would be considered an unwarrantable impertinence for any public official to inquire. Yet no man has ever been known, so far as we are aware, to complain of this as a hardship, or as imposing a loss upon him, and no such complaint has arisen from any state as a state, nor has any one been heard to claim that there was here an actual loss, which must be endured for the sake of the great benefits which come from Union. On the contrary, it is universally and tacitly agreed that this is one of the great benefits of the Union.

Here, however, comes in another phase of the matter. If a man lives in Vermont he must trade freely with New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York, but if he wants to trade northward to Canada, it is regarded as fatal to him and to his country, that he should do so freely. As we won Texas from Mexico, we enter into absolute free trade with her, but we think that it would be ruinous to trade freely with the rest of the ancient state of Mexico. If we had got the political jurisdiction of San Domingo, we should have entered into free exchanges with her, but the difficulty of the political jurisdiction was the main ground of the wise decision of the nation not to buy that island. If, however, we cannot have the trouble of the political jurisdiction, we think it would be calamitous to have the free exchanges. Free exchanges with Cuba are not to be thought of on our part, even if they would be granted on hers.

Here, then, the refutation of the "nationality" notion is right before us, and it is at the same time the condemnation of our policy in regard to foreign commerce. If there be any such thing as an "American system "a system which we can claim to illustrate and advocate beforethe civilized world, it must be that of absolute free trade, each state or nation providing for its own needs and expenses, each state freely open to all comers, securing peace and safety to persons and property while within its borders.

The "British system" is different, and is distinctly defined. It is to raise revenue by customs for convenience, and to lay excises to counteract "incidental protection." We would be very glad to see the British system introduced into this country, but if the protectionists taunt freetraders with flinching from the consequences of their doctrine, we accept the challenge. We are convinced by the experience of the United States, that the best system would be to have absolutely free exchanges, and to leave each nation to pay the expense of maintaining the organization of society within its own borders.

Another application of the facts here discussed which is put to us, is deserving of far less respectful treatment. It is said that we have free trade already within the Union, and that we are discontented and unreasonable, because we demand more. It would be difficult to show why a man who has ten thousand dollars should not sue for ten thousand more which are due him, or why a man who enjoys the right of locomotion is unreasonable in demanding the right of association.

There is in all that we have said no infringement upon the true idea of the "nation," and no derogation from its value and dignity. It exists historically and traditionally, and we take it as it is handed down to us. It is an organized human society, whose limits are given historically, and are maintained for convenience, because they allow play to certain local interests, prejudices, traditions, habits and customs. Whether it is formed by accident and immemorial tradition, or by colonization. and legislative act, it develops an organic life. The society as such

develops functions. Its harmonious action emanates from its individual members and reacts upon them. Its government is the machinery by which harmony, co-operation and unity are brought about. It would seem, however, that America had done its greatest service to the world by showing that states did not exist for the sake of bringing men into convenient groups for making either commercial or military war upon each other, but that they might more easily embrace the earth in a family of harmonious communities.

EDITORIAL NOTES.

OURSELVES.

The work of the Alliance is carried on entirely by voluntary service, and is consequently subject, more or less, to interruptions by other claims upon the time of its officers. Incessant and imperative official duties have prevented the Secretary from acknowledging the large number of letters which have been received, except by mailing a copy of our pamphlet "OUR REVENUE SYSTEM AND THE CIVIL SERVICE, SHALL THEY BE REFORMED?"

Notwithstanding these obstacles, the work has been quietly and steadily progressing. Information of the most encouraging character clearly indicates to us that the seed we have been sowing is promising an early harvest.

Thus far we have confined ourselves to circulating the pamphlet. It seems now to be necessary that we should enlarge the boundaries of our work; and while there may be some appearance of presumption in our entering upon a field already so well and so ably filled as that of Journalism, we have only to say that it is not with any desire to become competitors, but mainly to keep up a communication with, and furnish aid to, the large number of friends throughout the country who are already believing that the measures proposed by us afford the most hopeful method. for securing much-needed reforms.

The Evening Post, in announcing our first meeting, said:

"The significance of the meeting lies in the fact that a movement, obscure in its origin and quietly pushed forward, has attained such a measure of growth as to justify holding regular public meetings. It is suggestive from the fact that from the beginning the movers in it have taken the high scientific ground of absolute free trade, and that their strength to-day has not been diminished in any way by compromises or by equivocal expressions as to what they mean.

"Now, whatever may be thought of absolute free trade as an element in the practical administration of government, and however men may differ as to the impolicy or impossibility of raising revenues for the gov