r foul with the mephitic exhalations that rise from dead
and rotting principle. When the state is corrupt, and large bodies of
its citizens are not only corrupt but wholly scornful of every
fraternal and philanthropic purpose as well,--when communities like
this of Wall Street, cold-blooded, shameless, injurious, are bowed to
as powers, instead of being shunned as pests, then the ideals of such
men as Karl Marx and his disciples loom distant and indefinite on the
horizon of the future. Tritest of metaphors though it may be, all
civilization is a garden, and in this garden of our own western
tillage Wall Street towers to-day like a colossal weed, with roots
deep-plunging into a soil they desiccate and de-fertilize. When and
whose will be the extirpating hand?

Here dawns a question with which some modern Sphinx may defy some
coming OEdipus. Let us hope it will prove a question so adequately
answered that the evil goddess using it as a challenge--the
conventional deity of injustice, duplicity, and extortion--will
dramatize her compulsory response to it by casting herself headlong
into the sea!

PROTECTION OR FREE TRADE--WHICH?

BY HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, M. C.

The advocates of free trade in this country at the present time are
very unlike Emerson's "fine young Oxford gentlemen" who said "there
was nothing new, and nothing true, and no matter." They not only
believe their pet doctrine to be true, but they seem to assume that it
is also new. They further treat it as if it were an exact science and
a great moral question as well. Unwarranted assumptions merely confuse
and this question of national economic policy is too important to be
clouded with confusions. It is worth while, therefore, to look at
these assumptions one by one and try, before attempting any discussion
of the tariff, to clear the ground from cant and to see the question
exactly as it is.

In the first place, the question of free trade or protection is in no
sense a moral one. Free traders are prone to forget that their great
prophet, Adam Smith, drew this distinction very plainly at the outset.
He wrote two important works. One of them all the world has read. It
is called "The Wealth of Nations," deals with the selfish interests of
mankind, and embodies the author's political economy. The other is an
equally elaborate work entitled "The Moral Sentiments." It is the
complement of "The Wealth of Nations," which is devoted to the selfish
side o