A profusion of styles and brands of goods was one of the characteristics of pre-war individualism. The American manufacturer did not force American consumers to lie in an iron bed of Procrustes of standard dimension, but he furnished them with iron, brass, and wooden beds of manifold sizes and designs. American producers did not prescribe an unvarying color scheme, for the American householder could choose among more than one hundred shades of house paint. The variety of design in ordinary articles gave full opportunity for the satisfaction of the most fastidious tastes; the discriminating judge of chairs had 5i8 patterns of piano stools and a countless legion of ordinary chairs from which to make his choice; the connoisseur of plows and cultivators could undoubtedly find the style dictated by his own individualistic notions from the varied assortment displayed by the agricultural implement dealers; and anyone who was particular about the appearance of the interior of his house could spend his lifetime in examining samples of wall paper. From the cradle to the grave, from the many varieties of cribs and baby carriages to the profusion of styles in burial shrouds and coffins, the American consumer has been unrestricted in his choice. Lack of standardization is found chiefly in manufactured products, where variety can be introduced at the whim of the manufacturer. Definite grades have been established for the basic raw materials like wheat, cotton, wool, lumber, coal, and iron, where style and appearance are not important, and where the commodity is evaluated by physical and mechanical tests. As the raw material emerges into the field of finished products, however, it breaks up into many brands differentiated from each other by the intangible and aesthetic qualities of shape, color, and design, which cannot often be reduced to a single mechanical standard. It is true that standard bolts and screws are used in the manufacture

An immigration bill which contains, first, a codification of existing immigration laws, second, provision for the literacy test, and third, certain other additions to our present statutes regulating immigration, was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 29, i9i6, by Congressman Burnett. On March 30 the bill, which is known as the Burnett Immigration bill, passed the House by a vote of 308 to 87. It is now pending before the Senate. This bill represents another attempt to enact into law practically the same measure which was vetoed in 19I3 after it had passed both houses of Congress. At that time it failed by a scant margin to muster the two-thirds vote in the Senate which would have made it a law in spite of the President's veto. In his veto of the bill of I913, President Wilson apparently regarded the literacy test as the overshadowing issue presented by the bill, and he based his objections to the entire measure chiefly upon his objections to the literacy test. Similarly, in the debates in Congress and in popular discussion throughout the country the other features of the proposed legislation of I913 attracted scarcely a passing comment. The present bill is considered in the same light. A literacy clause similar to that of I9I3, with the added provision that the literacy requirement shall not apply to aliens who are seeking admission to the United States to avoid religious persecution, is the storm center of the present Burnett bill. The problem of the further regulation of European immigration to this country has been a political question for at least twenty-five years, and throughout the greater part of that period it has been commonly discussed in connection with one single method of solution, the literacy test. Since the enactment of laws, in i882 and the decade following, barring aliens who were undesirable because of certain physical, mental, or moral defects, no important