From the beginning of federal regulation of combination there has been an insistent demand on the part of the farmers for the exemption of their organizations. The political history of the past thirty years is full of party promises to the farmers, but the laws on the statute books reveal a rather niggardly performance of the promises made.

A tax on commodities is wholly or partly shifted upon consumers according as the taxed goods are produced under conditions of constant or increasing cost, respectively, and according as the demand for these goods-if they are produced under conditions of increasing cost-is absolutely inelastic, or is more or less elastic. If the conditions of production of a taxed commodity are those of constant cost, and if the industry is a competitive one, all of those in the business (with their land and capital) would leave and go into some other line or lines of production rather than bear any special tax.' If the demand for a taxed article is absolutely elastic, all the consumers will refuse to buy rather than pay an appreciably higher price. Usually both demand and supply are somewhat elastic. Some of the persons engaged in producing the taxed article are unwilling to continue so doing unless they can shift substantially the entire tax; but others may be willing to continue producing though they can shift but a part or none. Likewise, some buyers will not purchase a taxed good, or will purchase appreciably less of it, if the tax is shifted to them in any noticeable degree; but others will purchase though they have to pay some or all of the tax in the form of a higher price. A tax on commodities, therefore, or on a given commodity, while it is usually borne chiefly by consumers, may frequently be borne in part by producers of the goods or good taxed. The case of taxes on sales of land or capital goods or on mortgages or loans is analogous. But while taxes on commodities fall upon consumers as such, regardless of the various sources of their incomes, and so rest on interest, wages, and rent,2 we may find that

The last eight years have seen the adoption by a number of the younger leaders of the British trade-union movement of the ideal of industrial self-government. In June, I914, the annual meeting of the National Union of Railwaymen resolved unanimously, that this congress, while reaffirming previous decisions in favor of nationalization of the railways, declares that no system of state ownership of the railways will be acceptable to organized railwaymen which does not . . . . allow them a due measure of responsibility and control in the safe and efficient working of the railway system.' At the annual conference in May, i919, of the Postal and Telegraph Clerks' Association, it was emphatically pointed out that the control demanded by the postal employees included participation in directing the technical improvement of the service for the good of the community.2 In i9i9 the Miners' Federation brought formally before the Coal Industry Commission a request not only for the nationalization of the mines, but of joint control by the

The Report' of the Federal Trade Commission on the "Profits of the Packers" should receive the most careful attention of economists and accountants who are interested in the problem of joint cost. In unmistakable language the commission condemns as unsound the methods of cost calculation employed in the packing industry, albeit the methods are fundamentally those which are followed by the United States Department of Agriculture and the various public-service commissions in dealing with similar cost problems. The economist will note that the commission offers no constructive or practical suggestions as to how the problem of cost-finding in the by-product industries should be solved; and the keen accountant who is not led astray by the sentiment that the word of a government body is the last word will realize that the "generally recognized principles of accounting," which the packers are openly accused of ignoring, are principles which have been evolved to meet the needs of business enterprises essentially different in character from the business of meat-packing concerns. Before reviewing in detail the criticisms offered by the Federal Trade Commission, it may be well to note those peculiarities of the packing industry which have given rise to the present system of cost accounting. In the first place, the meat-packer does not assemble raw materials into a finished unit as is the case in most manufacturing industries. He is engaged in dividing his raw material, consisting of a single commodity, into a great many finished products, differing widely from one another both in character and utility. Obviously, there is no way of ascertaining the money cost of each of the various products. Another peculiarity about the packing industry which affects the accounting system is its complexity. From the point of view of functions performed, the industry is a collection of four fairly distinct industries, each performing a different function. These

The policy of post-war taxation which is adopted by the federal government probably will have a more direct and vital influence on the general well-being of the country than any other governmental domestic policy. The war is over but not yet paid for, and it will be many years before the huge national debt of some twenty-four billions of dollars is liquidated. It is, therefore, of prime importance to every citizen to consider without prejudice what is the most equitable and least oppressive method of raising the enormous funds necessary to meet the greatly increased operating expenses of government, interest on the public debt, and the sinking fund to redeem it.