same by increasing the demand at home for the wheat. That this does not operate so long as wheat raisers come to a market where a surplus must be consumed in other countries does not destroy the argument, since the tendency is to reduce the surplus. The system is also thought to encourage, in lines of industry likely to prove productive, a rapid development of labor-saving machinery and new methods of manufacture, which may some time give to a nation superiority in the markets of the world. To many there seems a much more important reason for restrictions, in order to establish every needed form of production for the sake of national independence. That nation which contains within its own borders the means of supplying all the wants of its people is supposed to be more capable of independent growth, and to be freed from hampering competitions of trade, that may lead to wars and, perhaps, to extreme suffering in case of foreign war. For abundant examples in support of these various propositions, appeal is made to the history of the world by comparing countries developed under a restrictive tariff with less developed ones free from such restrictions. The history of our own country, under the ups and downs of tariff legislation, is also appealed to. Even the extra cost of certain articles to the whole people, which is the sole basis of advantage to the fostered interest, is thought to be more than compensated by the direct advantage of increasing competition at home, where it will have the most wholesome effect upon the market price. Proof of this, too, is sought in the rapid development of iron and steel manufacture, where protective tariffs have been most persistent.