It appears from descriptions accompanying the two letters that by the American device, owned in St. Louis, Mo., the dirt is collected in much the same way as by the English process, and that the essential difference between the two systems is that the American device dislodges the dirt in a carpet or other textile substance and forces it into a receptacle by a blast of air under a pressure of about 85 pounds to the square inch, while the English method cleans by suction.

A letter from a London company relative to the American invention informs me that they own the British patents, are doing a large business in London, and are establishing subsidiary companies throughout the provinces. The system is not yet known in Nottingham, and therefore I am unable to give it a personal description, but it would appear from the illustrated catalogue that, excepting the apparatus for generating compressed air, the appliances used are essentially the same as those of the vacuum system described in the report above referred to; that the results are identical in the two systems, except in so far as one may be more efficient than the other, and that the material difference between the two is in the manner in which the air acts upon the article to be cleaned. It is claimed for the American device, however, that it removes grease spots and stains without injuring nap or fabric, and that, after cleaning, disinfectants are blown on the walls and into the carpets by compressed air. I have not observed that similar claims are made for the British system. FRANK W. MAHIN,

NOTTINGHAM, ENGLAND, July 13, 1903.

Consul.

BRITISH EMPIRE AND PROTECTIVE TARIFFS. Not only has "the invitation given" to Great Britain "by" its "Colonial Secretary," Mr. Chamberlain, "to take stock of its fiscal policy" been accepted, but in the London Times of Thursday, July 9, there is, in an article on the tin trade of the Malay Peninsula, an announcement in the following words: That "the Government of the Federated Malay States has declared war upon a group of foreign speculators who are backed, it is believed, by some of the greatest names in the world of finance, and to that end has embarked upon a policy of protection." In the Times article it is stated:

On May 16 the following notification appeared in all the Government gazettes of the Federated Malay States:

"Under the provisions of section 3 of the customs duties enactment, 1898, the resident, with the approval of the resident-general, hereby imposes, as from the Ist day of June, 1903, a duty of $30 per picul (133 pounds) upon all tin ore exported from the State, other than tin ore exported under such guaranties as the resident No 277-03—4

may require that it will be smelted in the colony. The duty hereby imposed is to be paid in addition to the duty on tin ore at present in force."

This means that the Colonial Secretary himself—for action of this character would not be taken by a local government without his express sanction—has already in practical fashion initiated the policy of safeguarding local interests from the menace of foreign aggression by means of a protective tariff.

This declaration "of war upon a group of foreign speculators" indicates most certainly "in practical fashion" the tremendous resources for tariff conflict in the possession of the British statesman who, in close touch and exceedingly influential with the great selfgoverning colonies of Great Britain, is also, while in office, the direct ruler of the Crown colonies of which this Malay group is one, but that there are considerations which are in a sense limitations is pointed out in a card printed in the Times of the same date, written from the House of Commons, July 7, and signed "Alfred Emmott."

This gentlemen believes that there is "immense danger of misunderstandings in the outlying portions of the Empire of the present policy of unlimited inquiry on the question of the present [British] fiscal system." Continuing, he says, in part:

I received by the last Indian mail a copy of the Indian Textile Journal, containing an article on “Intercolonial free trade," in which I find the following, viz:

"The scheme [scheme of preferential tariffs] is full of golden promise for this country. Her cotton industry needs the stimulus to its development which such a fiscal arrangement would give. The free circulation of Indian and Egyptian (why Egyptian?) cottons throughout the Empire, with a tariff charge against America (sic) products, would at once restore to India the great wave of prosperity which she enjoyed during the period of the American civil war. Then Bombay alone exported a yearly average of £21,582,847 ($105,032,924), as against £7,460,085 ($36,304,503) exports in 1898-99 from the whole of the Indian Empire. The ryot, being thus assured of a certain and profitable market, would be encouraged to place more land under cultivation, to devote more energy and care to the growth of the plant, and to remedy or, at all events, decrease the admitted defect of shortness of staple." Now, what does this mean? It means that the writer of the article (the Journal is published in Bombay both in English and in the vernacular) believes Mr. Chamberlain to be in favor of a tax on raw cotton, and in this he may be right-I do not know; but it also means that the author is in favor of a return of the condition of things under which the mills of Lancashire are to be closed in order that India may profit.

When the inevitable discovery is made that no government can live a moment which dares to propose a tax on raw cotton in this country, what will be the effect on the mind of the person who wrote this article and of those natives who have read and believed it? It will be a feeling of bitter disappointment at the raising of hopes which can not be fulfilled, and probably a misunderstanding of the motives and a suspicion of the good intentions of the British Government and people. The friction that must be engendered by dispelling illusions of this kind will certainly not strengthen the ties that bind the Empire together.

MARSHAL HALSTEAD,

BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND, July 13, 1903.

Consul.

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL TRADE OF THE

UNITED KINGDOM.

The Birmingham Daily Post is printing a series of articles which, it states, "may be accepted as an authoritative exposition of the views held by Mr. Chamberlain on trade preference and reciprocity.

The purpose of the article published to-day-a comparison of foreign and colonial trade-is to show that, large as is the trade of Great Britain with foreign countries, "the colonies are incomparably the best customers for that division of export trade to which prudence bids" Great Britain "assign the higher value," for while "foreign countries take nearly all" of Great Britain's "exportation of raw materials, the colonies take" in very high percentages "far more than their share of manufactured goods." The article, complete (the paragraph relating to the pottery trade will be found to have a great interest to Americans), reads as follows:

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL TRADE COMPARED.

[From the Birmingham Post of July 20, 1903.]

One principal purpose of Mr. Chamberlain's policy being to enlarge our trade with the colonies, the objection is at once raised that if the colonial trade is enlarged the trade with foreign countries must be diminished, and that, inasmuch as the foreign trade is larger than the colonial, the loss of trade will necessarily be larger than the gain of trade.

It is a rather easy-going logic that infers that a special effort to encourage one section of our trade must of necessity lead to a reduction of the remainder. If a man takes special measures to improve the yield of his flower garden, it does not immediately follow that he must expect a failure of his kitchen garden. Even if we admit the inference, we can not, without protest, allow the aid of the rule of three to be invoked and the assumption to pass that the increase and decrease, respectively, will be exactly proportionate to the volume of trade affected.

This argument, however, forms the stamina of many criticisms of the policy under consideration. To avoid suspicion of misrepresentation, let it be given in the words of Mr. Leone Chiozza: Our over-sea trade is valued at £800,000,000 ($3,893,200,000), of which £600,000,000 ($2,919,900,000) is transacted with foreign nations and £200,000,000 ($973,300,000) with British possessions. Apart from other considerations, therefore, it is obviously unwise to dislocate three-fourths of our commerce in the endeavor to increase the remaining fourth."

THE FALLACY OF ADDING IMPORTS TO EXPORTS.

These round numbers are obtained by adding together exports and imports and calling the result "trade valued at " so much. Those who are acquainted with the amazing contributions to economical inquiry made by the present secretary of the Cobden Club will not be surprised when Mr. Chiozza informs them that this summary method was "suggested to me by Mr. Harold Cox." To add imports and

exports together is always absurd, and generally misleading. It is commonly used to cloak a fallacious argument. If a man who last year earned £600 ($2,919.90) and spent £500 ($2,433.25) added these amounts together and produced £1,100 ($5,353.15), his arithmetic would be excellent, but the total would be meaningless. If a brass founder, having sold £10 ($48.66) worth of doorknobs to a Canadian merchant, and having also bought 20s. ($4.86) worth of Canadian cheese on his way home, were to enter the two transactions together as dealings with Canada, £11 ($53.55" the entry would have no statistical value whatever, and the addition would have entirely destroyed any statistical value that belonged to the two separate items.

It should also be evident without argument that this method of lumping everything together conceals differences in real value between different transactions having the same volume in terms of money. When Mr. Chiozza writes our oversea trade is valued at" instead of "amounts to" 800,000,000 ($3,893,200,000), the substitution of the less-accurate phrase covers a mistake of vast importance. Would any reasonable man, wishing to compare the value-whether to the owners, to the persons employed, or to the nation-of two different commercial undertakings, be content merely with the one datum of the annual turnover? More persons may be earning a livelihood and a larger addition may be made to the national wealth by an undertaking with a turnover of £100,000 ($486,650) than by another with a turnover of £250,000 ($1,216,625).

VALUE DOES NOT VARY WITH VOLUME.

Or, again, there are important differences in value between the exportation of manufactured goods and the exportation of raw materials, or, among raw materials exported, between those which represent the surplus of a harvest or annual yield— e. g., raw cotton, or wheat, or wool-and those which represent a deduction from a store which can not be replenished—e. g., coal or china clay. These differences are neglected so long as we deal with gross totals.

These remarks will suffice to justify the preliminary observation that, in comparing our colonial with our foreign trade, we must take into account the kinds of trade as well as the volume of trade.

COMPARATIVE VALUE OF COLONIAL AND FOREIGN TRADE.

Bearing these things in mind, let us consider the following statistics. They are derived from the Board of Trade returns of British export trade in 1902:

The reader is asked to keep these percentages in mind and compare them with the percentage figures given below in respect of the several classes of exports that will be mentioned,

The following table is a classified summary of exports:

Even without further analysis the table exhibits at a glance the essential difference between our foreign and our colonial trade-a difference which is, from our point of view, entirely in favor of the colonial trade. Foreign countries take nearly all our exportation of raw materials; the colonies take far more than their share of manufactured goods.

The reasons for regarding the export of manufactures as of more value to us than the export of raw materials are obvious. In the first place, to export raw materials is to export the means by which foreign manufacturers will compete with British manufacturers. This is not given as a reason in itself for prohibiting or even checking such exportation, but it is a reason for assigning less value to this exportation than to exports of manufactured goods. A similar qualification should be made in the case of ships, the exportation of which represents a provision for enabling foreigners to compete with our export trade.

In the second place, speaking generally, a smaller proportion of the value of raw materials is value created by labor; or, in other words, a given amount in value of raw materials means less in employment and wages than the same amount of manufactured goods. This rule has many exceptions, but those exceptions do not apply to our trade. Raw cotton is an exception, for cotton is a crop of which the cost of production is largely labor cost. Only whereas cotton is the largest item in