The Massachusetts tariff reform league have compiled nineteequestions which we believe the advocates of taxing the necessaries of life will havesomedifficulty inanswering The statement contained in each question is backed up by some official report, the authority being given after each question: 1. Why under the benign influence of our war tariff, are one-third of our wage earners out of work one-third of the time. - Mass. Labor Rep., 1887, p. 294. 2. Why did wages in Great Britain go up between 1S72 and 1SS3 nine per cent., while trey went down in Massachusetts during the same period five per cent? - Mass. Labor Rep., 1SS5, p. 143. 3. Why did the cost of living here increase fourteen and one-half per cent. between 1860 and 187S, notwithstanding the tremendous improvements made in cheapening the cost of production ? - Mass. Labor Rep., 1885, p. 467. 4. Why are wages in free trade England from 50 to 100 per cent. higher than they are in any protected country on the continent of Europe? [U. S. Consular Labor Rep., vol. i, p. 178.] 5. Why does China, which has nurtured her people under a prohibitory tarift for several hundred years pay her common laborers twenty cents a dayand her skilied mechanics thirty cents a day? [U. S. Consular Labor Rep., vol. 3, p. 343.] 6. How are we able to sell ang nually $700,000,000 of the products of our high priced labor in foreign markets against the whole world, if as protectionists assert, free competitipn in goods means equality in wages? [U. S. Report on Commerce and Nav., 1887, p. 18.] 7. Why did the wealth of this country increase in the low tariff period, 1850 and 1860, 126 per cent., and in the high tariff period, 1870 and 1SS0, only 80 per cent., even after reducing the census values of 1S70 to a gold basis? [Ténth Census, vol. 7 pp.3, 4, 13.] 8. Why did the value of farms in this country increase from i8co to iS6o T03 per cent., and from 1870 to 1SS0 only 37 per cent? [10 Census vol. Agriculture.] 9. Why was the average annual increase in Massachusetts Savings Bank deposits from 1S50 to 1860, 12 per cent., aiid from 187010 1SS0 only 5 percent.? [Mass. Savings Bank Rep , 1S87, p. 616. 10. Why did American vessels control three-fourths of our foreign carrying trade in 1S56, and less than one-sixth of it in 1886? [U. S. Rep. on Commerce and Nav., 1877, p. 89.] 11. Why did Congress, after living 1 1 years under a low tarifF, vote in 1857 to make it still lower, and why did all the Massachusetts members support this reduction? Was Henry Wilson, the shoemaker, an enemy of labor? [Cong. Globe, 3rd ses., 34th Cong., pp. 971, 1062.] %ix. YVhv rlirl wares in usetts advance from the high tariff decade ending with 1830 to the low tanff decade ending with 1S60 fiftytwo per cent., while they advanced from 1860 to 18S3 only twentyeight per cent.? [Mass. Labor Rep., I8S3, pp. 142, 466.] 13. Why should not the Protectionist Tarifi Commission of 1S82, Tohn L. Hayes, Chairman, who Vecommended a tariff reduction of twenty per cent. and declared that such reduction was demanded "not by a mere discrimínate popular clamor, but by the best conservative opinión of the country," be denounced under the new dispensation as arrant free traders? Rep. of Tariff Com., 1S82, p. 5.] 14. How can John D. Long, who declared four years ago that nobodv advocated a prohibitory tariff and" that "the free list was the honest revenue reformer's hope," any longer support the Republican party ? [Mass. Rep. Con., of April, iSS4.[ 15. Why, in spite of the f act that land and food are cheaper here, does it cost a family spending $1,000 a year, $58 a year more to live in this country than in England on precisely the same scale? [Mass. (Labor Report, 1SS5, p. 157.] 16. Why is not $58 a moderate estímate of the tax payed by evcry family in this country in order that Andrew Carnegie and others of his kind may grow immensely rich and lock out their employees at pleasure. 17. With Poles, Bohemians and Italians swarming into this country free of duty, how much are our wage earners benefited by the protective tax on lumber, coal, clothing, salt and almost everything they have to buy ? How much higher ought the Ux to be in order to make us all supremely happy ? 1 8. In view of the public assertions of protectectionists that the prime object of the tariff is to help the poor workingmen, what does James P. Foster, President of the Republican League, mean by saying in his confidential circular of May 25, that the manufacturers get "practically the sole benefit" from our tanff laws, and that t would be a good thing to "fry the fat" out of the Pennsylvania manufacturers "who are more highly protected than any body else and who make large fortunes every year when times are prosperous?" Has Mr. Foster given the whole thing away ? 19. How do Pennsylvania manufacturers accumulate their "fat'4 except by the preying upon the general public forced by the tariff to buy their producís at whatever price they choose to ask for them ?