Hughes Stand on Tariff Wise.

The tariff issue Mr. Paine sees as a question of continuing the progressive legislation of President Wilson or of returning to the "old Mark Hanna type of protection." Mr. Hughes, however, is just as fairly and honestly opposed to "the artificial protection given to special interests" as the framers of the Underwood tariff, but he certainly does not, as the Democrats do, advocate a return to the condition of economic depression that existed before the war, the return that existed before the war, the return that will come when Europe will be able to provide for herself and will flood our country with her products. Those who can remember as far back as before the war, and look as far ahead as the declaring of peace, will not be so fooled by the present prosperity as to construe it the result of Democratic legislation.

In reference to the Adamson Bill Mr. Palue excuses "legislation before inves- tigation," only on the ground that investigation can not tell us as much as experience can. Now if we cannot anticipate experience with accurate investigation of present conditions and thus both evede disasters and select our lines of progress, the whole modern idea of enlisting experts for the scientific study of national economic problems may as well go to the floor and the nation rub on as best it may in hit-or-miss fashion. Why look before you leap when that means "belogging and postponing the issue"? Nations that always acted precipitately would save themselves much intellectual effort. But rather than have a mere "decision by speculation" in the railroad strike, Mr. Paine prefers what we had, namely, , a hasty leap into "experience," a creation of precedent we do not know how disastrous, and justifiable only to Democrats who can enjoy the fruits of its political expediency.

Courses in Mexico Unwarranted.

Mr. Wilson has maintained toward Mexico, Mr. Paine says, "a policy of allowing the Mexicans to rid themselves of a government which, in conjunction with unscrupulous foreign capitalists, has exploited and robbed Mexico." The gentle and humanitarian policy of "allowing" the Mexicans to "rid themselves" of oppression, etc., has seemed rather more like a policy of unwarrantable and secretly conducted interference, to the end of destroying the only hope of stable government that Mexico possessed, of plunging her into the years of anarchy that followed and enraging her against us. "To have intervened would have meant the armed occupation of Mexico," Mr. Paine says. Not to have intervened has meant, we reply, the killing of hundreds of Mexicans, the loss of several of our soldiers, to say nothing of that world-wide disgrace and ridicule which the administration is too brave to mind at all. To have recognized Huerta, however, and legally insisting on our rights, would have probably meant nothing worse than the settling of the Mexican problem months ago.

Just how the differences and inconsistencies in the arguments of various Republicans can be made an issue (without deliberate levity) by any one who supports President Wilson is hard to see. Mr. Hughes may indeed have widely different supporters, but "straight Americanism" will be enough for them all, although it may bore the Democrats as a "platitude". By insisting on the respecting of our rights by Germany, through a genuine threat of force, Mr. Hughes will satisfy the Roosevelt sentiment; in gaining a fair treatment from England of our mails and cargoes he will satisfy his German American supporters.

Wilson Created Danger of War.

Finally, Mr. Paine's idea that we could not have insisted on our rights at the time the Lusitania was sunk without causing war, because Germany was ready to defy us, is immediately refuted by his following statement that Germany has later respected them. It is unfortunate that this time the Democrats cannot "both eat their cake and have it too." If Germany had been so ready to defy us, she wouldn't have yielded up her profitable submarine campaign. Her final yielding, however, which was due more to respect for the power of the aroused American people than to the literature of their representative, shows that she was only trying to play her game of injuring us when necessary, as long as we would stand for it. Her vague "unsatisfactory" notes did not suggest blunt defiance. She never was directly hostile, and we do her wrong in saying she would have declared war on us even if we had broken off diplomatic relations. We also give Mr. Wilson a bit too much credit when we laud him for keeping us out of war, the only dangers of which were provoked by his weakness.  P. W. WHITTLESEY 3G.