New and Beautiful

Flannels

TH

HIS season we offer a wider assortment than ever of new and beautiful Flannels in novel designs and colorings, suitable for Waists, House Gowns, Kimonos, etc.

Plain and Fancy Scotch Flannels (half-wool), width 30 inches, 50c. to 75c. yard. French Printed Flannels

(all-wool), width 27 inches, 75c. yard.

French Novelty Flannels

(all-wool), width 27 inches, 75c. and 85c. yard.

Fancy Scotch Flannels

(half-wool), width 30 inches, $1.00 yard. Fine Saxony Flannels

(all-wool), fancy stripes and all white, width 28 inches, 1.00 and $1.25 yard.

Mail orders have prompt attention.

James McCutcheon & Co. 14 West 23d St., N. Y.

Maybe the grocer

is "just out of Ivory Soap but has another, he thinks, is just as good." Ivory must be the best or he would not use it as his standard of comparison. Buy Ivory Soap and be sure of getting the best.

The Gorham Co.

desires to call attention to the

GORHAM

SILVER
POLISH

IN CAKE FORM

A novel preparation designed for the perfect polishing and cleaning of silverware. It gives the maximum of effect with the minimum of effort, is guaranteed to contain no harmful ingredient and to be the most economical polish on the market

Price 25 cents a package If unobtainable at your jewelers', send 25 cents in stamps for a sample package to The Gorham Co.

Broadway 19th Street, New York

Rarely is there so senSpeaker Henderson's sational an event in the Withdrawal serious political history of the country as Speaker Henderson's letter last week declining renomination for Congress. His district gave him in 1900 a majority of more than eleven thousand, his renomination was tendered him unanimously, and--despite the nomination of ex-Governor Boies as his opponent-the Democratic party was hopelessly divided and dispirited by the fierce contest over the reaffirmation of the Kansas City platform. The explanation of General Henderson's withdrawal, as given in his letter to the chairman of the notification committee of the Congressional district, is as follows:

Since my return to this district I have made a careful study as to the sentiment in the district and State, and I believe there is no little sentiment, and a growing sentiment, among Republicans that I do not truly represent their views on the tariff question. Believing this condition to exist, and knowing that I do not agree with many of my people that trusts, to which I am and have been opposed, can be cured or the people benefited by free trade, in whole or in part, I must decline to accept the nomination so generously and enthusiastically made.

In an address to the Republican voters of the district, published at the same time with this letter, Speaker Henderson declares his opposition to trusts, his advocacy of National legislation to control them, and even his indorsement of the spirit of the Iowa platform's declaration in favor of any modification of the tariff that may be necessary to prevent its affording shelter to monopoly, but he cannot, he declares, stand for tariff revision as a remedy in any degree for the evils of trusts. "I must say, and say emphatically," he writes, "that I don't believe that a single schedule of the Dingley tariff can be so amended as to relieve the people from the oppression of trusts and combi

No. 4

nations, however named, and that such action may involve the retarding of our expanding commerce and holding of foreign markets." In both the address and the letter the crux of the speaker's position seems to be that he would have been ready to stand upon the Iowa platform, as interpreted by the friends of the present tariff, but that he could not accept the interpretation placed upon it by the radical tariff revisionists, dominant in his own district and in the State. This attitude was even more sharply defined in a telegram which he sent the day following to friends in Des Moines, who had urged him to reconsider: "I cannot acquiesce in administering free-trade poison to cure the trust evil which I abhor."

Explanation of the Withdrawal

The startling character of General Henderson's action and its obvious tendency to injure his party by emphasizing a division at the beginning of the Congressional campaign at once set everybody to asking whether there was not some other reason for the withdrawal than the one assigned. The various affirmative answers offered to this question would be more satisfactory if there were not so many of them. The fear of defeat in the district was the one most often assigned— by those who knew least about the district and least about General Henderson. Personal resentment at being obliged to face a campaign in which his personal habits were to be made an issue by a Prohibition opponent was a reason assigned by better-informed critics at Washington, but not one which finds credence in Iowa. The Prohibition vote in the Third Iowa (Dubuque) District is altogether insignificant, and the Democrats. regard Speaker Henderson as the most popular candidate his party could name.

Nevertheless, the irritations caused by personal criticism may always have their influence upon sensitive public men. The reason, however, most frequently suggested by competent critics was General Henderson's fear that he could not be re-elected Speaker. It has been recalled that near the close of the last session the Speaker was overridden by an "insurgent" minority of his party, and that Mr. Cushman, of Washington, had been greeted with applause from nearly all quarters when he made the following protest against the Speaker's rule:

Imagine, if you please, a measure—not a private measure, but a public measure-which has been considered at length by a great committee of this House and favorably reported with the recommendation that it do pass. That bill is then placed on the "calendar." The calendar! That is a misnomer. It ought to be called the cemetery [laughter], for therein lie the whitening bones of legislative hopes. [Laughter.] When the bill is reported and placed on the calendar, what does the member who introduced it, and who is charged by his constituency to secure its passage, do? Does

he consult the committee who considered the bill and recommend it for passage? No. Does he consult the will of the majority of this House? No. What does he do? I will tell you what he does. He either consents that the bill may die upon the calendar, or he puts his manhood and his individuality in his pocket and goes trotting down that little pathway of personal humiliation that leads to where? To the Speaker's room. Aye, the Speaker's room. All the glories that clustered around the holy of holies in King Solomon's temple looked like thirty cents compared with that jobbing department of this Government. [Applause and laughter.] Then you're in the presence of real greatness. What then? Why, the Speaker looks over your bill and then tells you whether he thinks it ought to come up or not.

But protests like this were rather against the powers wielded by every Speaker under present rules than against the manner in which Speaker Henderson exercised them, and Speaker Henderson had a better chance for a second term as Speaker than a President has often had for a second term in the only office carrying greater power. These explanations, therefore, do not fully explain, and the one assigned by Speaker Henderson must, in justice as well as in charity, be accepted as the true one. He has often shown himself ready to bend in order to be in accord with his party, but at the present juncture it was impossible for him to bend in one direction so as to be

in accord with the party sentiment dominant in Iowa, and at the same time bend in the other direction so as to be in accord with the party sentiment dominant in Washington. He believes, furthermore, that the party sentiment now dominant in Iowa is a passing one, and that he has only, as he expresses it, to "let the new light shine" to have it burn out and his constituents return to the old leadership. We do not in the least believe that this opinion is correct; but that is no reason for not believing that he honestly entertains it.

are those of President Roosevelt at Cincinnati and of Secretary Shaw in Chicago. The important features of the President's address we publish, as we have before published the New England addresses, with his authorization. Two sentences in this speech we have transferred to our cover; they seem to us to go to the root of the two questions now before the American people: govermental control and tariff revision. Secretary Shaw's speech emphasizes, possibly unintentionally, the difference manifesting itself in the Republican party. Mr. Shaw believes in reciprocity, but not in tariff revision; he quotes at length Mr. McKinley's speech at Buffalo, and concludes that Mr. McKinley favored, not the abolition or reduction of our tariffs, but their employment to promote foreign trade. If we understand Mr. Shaw aright, he would maintain unchanged the principle that the American market is to be kept for the American manufacturer; but he would sell the right to certain foreigners to trade in the American market in exchange for the right of Americans to trade in the foreigner's market. The following paragraph from his speech illustrates this principle:

France has given a number of countries the advantage over us in her markets. The only way we can get equal concessions is to give her some little concession in our markets. If we were to reduce our tariff rates ever so much, it would not help us over there; it would only help France over here. There can can be no reciprocity in the transaction until we secure it by contract, by treaty. She sells a special privilege in her markets for a consideration, and she would never buy privileges

in the American market if we stood ready to let every nation on earth into our markets free and without consideration. So I repeat that I have scant regard for that statesmanship that will give trade privileges away and will refuse to sell them.

He applies the same principle to Cuba and urges Cuban reciprocity, not on ethical grounds, though in a sentence he recognizes our ethical obligations to Cuba, but on purely economic grounds:

It is proposed that the people of the United States shall have an advantage over every other people of the earth in all the Cuban markets. We run a department store. Cuba has a fruit stand on the corner. We can afford to pay any price for a little candy and a few bananas if by doing so we can supply her household.

by reason of their nearness and the adaptation of their goods to Canadian needs, are still able to increase their trade in most lines, there are some in which the preference accorded Great Britain absolutely excludes American competition.

The present tendency, furthermore, is for Canada to make these exclusions broader,

by giving still greater preferences to British products, in the hope of securing from the mother country preferential tariffs which will weigh upon our farm products in the British markets. In short, by refusing reciprocity with Canada we are but "teaching instructions which being taught return to plague the inventor." With what measure we mete, it is certain to be measured to us again.

nothing in common in the two positions. We are very much mistaken if Mr. Shaw's argument for reciprocity does anything to satisfy the growing demand in the West for tariff revision, or anything to divert the public from that demand.

On another page will be found Reciprocity with Canada a plea for reciprocity with Canada, written by the Hon. John Charlton, the Canadian statesman who for nearly a generation has been the foremost Canadian advocate of natural trade relations between his country and ours. If there be any adequate reply to his argument that freedom of commerce between Canada and the United States would naturally enrich all concerned as much as freedom of commerce between American States, we should be glad to publish it. But that in his article which particularly demands attention at this time is his statement of the effect upon Canada of our protracted refusal to treat her producers as liberally as she treats ours. Her duties upon our products are still only half as heavy as our duties upon hers, but her duties on our products are being made heavier by the spirit of retaliation which our attitude engenders. Already the Canadian duties upon our manufactures are one-third higher than the duties on the same class of goods from Great Britain, and while our manufacturers,

Conventions

The Republican State Con

last week in Alabama, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, all de

manded President Roosevelt's nomination in 1904. In Alabama alone was there any opposition to this indorsement, and there the proposal to omit it was only defeated by the narrow majority of 158 to 145. Apparently the President, contrary to all precedent, is least strong among the officeholders who control the Southern conventions of his party. The most significant action of the Alabama Convention, however, was its ratification of the previous action of the Republican State Committee in excluding all negro delegates. In this respect it went even further than the recent Convention in North Carolina, for in Alabama there were more negro delegates apparently entitled to credentials. In fact, in Alabama the Republican party is almost exclusively negro. In New Hampshire the significant action of the Convention was its cautious recommendation of "essential changes" in the law prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquor. The Convention, however, refused to indorse a local option and license system, and so worded the platform that it might be interpreted to express dissatisfaction only with the non-enforcement of the law by many municipalities. In Connecticut the interesting plank in the platform was one opposing a general revision of the tariff, but favoring a cautious revision of particular schedules if any have" been notoriously