The export practices of other continental countries have not been subjected to as close or as critical examination as those of Germany, so that there is available but scanty material upon which to base conclusions as to the prevalence of dumping in these countries.But the combination of circumstances which especially favored the development of export dumping in Germany on a systematic and extensive scale, namely, the growth of large-scale manufacturing industries operating under unified or syndicated control and enjoying high tariff protection in the domestic market, were not present to nearly the same degree in the remainder of the Continent.In most of the continental countries manufacturing for export was either comparatively unimportant or was largely confined to the production by small concerns of individualized products under conditions not far removed from the handicraft stage.It is not to be expected, therefore, that dumping should be found to be as prominent in the export trade of these countries as of Germany.Such evidence as is available appears to justify the conclusion that in these countries dumping in the export trade was practiced on an extensive scale only by such producers as were operating under conditions closely similar to those governing the syndicated German industries, namely, large-scale machine industry, syndicated control, and a protected domestic market.In some respects conditions most closely resembling those of German manufacturing industry were to be found in Belgium.There were in this country many important large-scale manufacturing enterprises, organized into producers' syndicates closely modeled after the German kartells.But these syndicates exported so large a proportion of their total output, and the domestic market in many cases was relatively so unimportant, that there was little to be gained from an attempt to maintain domestic prices on a permanently higher level than those prevalent in the important export markets.Moreover, the Belgian tariff was too low, and the Belgian market too close to Germany, France, and England, to permit of the maintenance of prices in the domestic market substantially higher than the export prices-often dumping prices-of the producers in these countries.The conditions were in these important respects unfavorable, therefore, to the practice by Belgian producers of dumping on a systematic and substantial scale.'Some of the most important of Belgian industries nevertheless found it practicable to resort to dumping either intermittently or on a permanent basis, and in several instances export bounties, both to direct exporters and to domestic manufacturers buying materials for further use in manufacture for export, were employed.Among the industries which resorted more or less systematically to dumping were the iron and steel, coal, cement, plate glass, canned vegetables, and earthenware syndicates, all of them among the leading industries of Belgium.2Because the domestic market was relatively unimportant for some of these industries, Belgian dumping occasionally took the form of the sale of Belgian products at lower prices in distant foreign markets than in other export markets which were closer by and were "standard" markets for Belgian products.3I Cf.G. De Leener, L'Organisation Syndicale des Chefs d'Industrie, Brussels, I909, II, 274, 433.Cf. especially, p. 433: "La Belgique, a defaut de protection douaniere suffisante, present peu d'exemples caracterises de la pratique du 'dumping."' 2 For evidence of Belgian dumping, see U.

There is perhaps no more remarkable phenomenon in the literature of economics than the paucity of general treatises in the English language on government finance. The only book of this kind by an English writer, Bastable's Public Finance, is scholarly, thorough, and comprehensive, but it has not been revised since I903, for the undergraduate student it is too densely packed with details of only antiquarian interest, it is heavy reading, and on matters of special concern to American students it is very often uncomprehending, almost always inadequate. Of American treatises, except the two which are the subject of this article, there are only two others. Of these the late H. C. Adams' Science of Finance was a landmark in the history of American literature in its field. It had the outstanding merits of originality, of power of analysis, and of maturity of thought. As a teaching text, however, it had the serious defect that it was excessively abstract in character, and took too much knowledge on the part of the reader for granted. It contained very little descriptive matter, even for illustrative purposes, and it made no attempt to describe the current financial practices and taxation methods of American governments. Moreover, it is now ten years since the latest edition was published, and too much has happened to government finance in the last decade to make anything but a post-war treatment suitable for the college instructor who wishes either to derive his general principles from a discussion of recent developments or to use accepted general principles in the explanation and appraisal of recent developments. The other American text, W. M. Daniels' Public Finance, was, for its purposes and within its set limits, excellent. It combined acute analytical power with a generous acquaintance and use of both the literature and the facts of government finance. Above all, it was written in a clear and highly read-