686 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
And today in Prussia their introduction is opposed by two powerful forces. One of these is the Prussian government's fear of temporary or permanent loss of revenue; the other, the jealousy of the sectional interests and trade interests that are concerned about the preservation of the estab- lished course of trade and industry.
Among the examples of erroneous tariff construction which Meyer recites, the first is the cancellation of the tapering rates on grain, which were withdrawn in the year 1894 in order to make possible the ratification of the Russian treaty of commerce of that time. This example is chosen not without skill, since uncertainty existed then, and even today opinions differ with respect to the correctness of this procedure. But it proves nothing with respect to the inability of the state to make railway tariffs, because in cases where such complications of economic policy did not exist the older tapering grain rates were maintained (such as the graded mileage rates of the Prussian Eastern Railway) ; indeed, new tapering rates for the export of grain were introduced, which fact, however, was known to Professor Meyer. The second illustration he claims to find in the export rates on sugar. It is true that their adoption was preceded by extensive investigations, but nevertheless they were finally introduced, as he himself states on p. 15. And with this all his preceding assertions fall to the ground. On p. 16 he claims that the restriction on workmen's return tickets is connected with this question. Herein lies a remarkable misunder- standing. Meyer confuses the return tickets of laborers with the reductions in party tickets for the so-called season laborers who, it is true, are attracted in part by beet culture. But in both cases the question is one of beets. The reduced rates for the so-called season laborers have never been canceled. They exist today.
Then Professor Meyer takes up the question of the ore tariffs from Lorraine-Luxemburg to Westphalia. Before their introduc- tion, too, difficulties had to be overcome, and the question was investigated very thoroughly; but finally, on June I, 1901, they were introduced, and this Mr. Meyer conceals. And with this the entire edifice, constructed from material brought together from many sources, collapses. The author in his statements has confused fact and fiction to such an extent that it would require considerably more space to uncover his errors in detail than these through-and- through confused statements themselves occupy, and out of all of which only this remains true, that there are in Prussia, as in all
