A Survey of the World

By Tom Dolan

The attention of the sixty-first Congress was naturally given first to the President’s annual document, which this year lost none of its usual length. In its entirety it is a plea for centralization of governmental authority in “the administration,” alleging that the nation cannot be “in peril from any man who derives authority from the people and who is from time to time compelled to give an account of its exercise to the people.” Mr. Roosevelt should know, and does know, however, that under our present manner of electing executives “the people” are as a mass too indifferent, or too ignorant, to demand such an accounting and until election by popular vote is incorporated as a principle of proceeding, he is virtually suggesting a monarchy, upheld by a special caste consisting of the holders of Federal office and the recipients of Administrative favor.

For the control of the trusts, he offers nothing new—nothing that he has not already woven into the fabric of “my policies.” He denounces the Sherman law, and believes in regulation and control by strong central authority.

On the question of the currency, he was pathetically weak and eagerly willing to leave it to his monetary commission to “propose a thoroughly good system which will do away with the existing defects,” and very guardedly admits that there was a “monetary disturbance in the fall of 1907 which immensely increased the difficulty of ordinary relief.”

On the labor question—a matter upon which Hamiltonians may much more safely grow expansive than those of finance—Mr. Roosevelt declared against child labor, for diminution of work on the part of women, and a general shortening of the hours of labor and for an inheritance tax that would help to equalize the burden of taxation which now falls so heavily upon those least able to bear it. He commended highly the intelligence of the labor vote, which refused to be “swung” as a unit for any candidate and took occasion to pay his respects to Mr. Taft as an ideal Judge. On protection to workingmen, Mr. Roosevelt displayed a sympathetic attitude which does him much credit. “When a workman is injured, he needs not an expensive and dreadful lawsuit, but the certainty of relief through immediate administrative action. No academic theory about ‘freedom of contract’ should be permitted to interfere with this movement.” He urged Congress to pass without delay an Employers’ Liability Law, which should serve as a model, covering the District of Columbia.

Among the old issues to which Mr. Roosevelt adverted were recommendations pertaining to the preservation of forests and the encouragement of industrial education. The Philippine policy is to continue and independence is promised so indefinitely that it isapparent that no voluntary, relinquishment is ever intended. Both the Parcels Post and Postal Savings Banks were favored, the former being strongly urged.

Washington, D. C. Herald

Results—not the sinking of money for no adequate return—was stressed as to inland waterways. Considerations in reference to public health came in for a word, and the Pure Food Law was lauded in superlative terms. The President advocated increased appropriations for educational departments and for increasing the “now totally inadequate pay of our judges.”

Mr. Roosevelt advises abandonment of the idea of combining New Mexico and Arizona into one State, and suggests that they each be given independent Statehood.

He averred that the nation’s foreign policy is “based on the theory that right must be done between nations as between individuals.” This is a specimen of “speaking softly.” The “Big Stick” follows almost immediately in the almost frantic state of mind he seems to be in concerning the needs for a great army and navy. Even the small boys ought to be trained in rifle practice! If he had added the hope that small girls would be taught to mould bullets and scrape lint, he would have been patriotically sublime!

That portion of his message which demands that members of legislative branch of the government be prosecuted as are those in the executive, and his sneer at Congress as being afraid of the Secret Service has created intense excitement in both houses and the language used in the message may be totally expunged from the records. Both Democrats and Republicans concur in the disposition to ignore matters of party and act in this matter, casting a stigma upon them all, as a whole.

Mr. Roosevelt’s bold assertion that the Panama Canal is a model for all work of that kind will meet many challengers. Philippe Bunau-Varilla, formerly Panama minister to the United States, has just issued a statement declaring that the Canal will cost $280,000,000 and that the plan now being carried out, owing to the dangers from the Gatun Dam, (which has already shown itself unreliable) “will result almost surely in the greatest disaster in the history of public undertakings.”

The President’s message, altogether, is like the President himself: commendable in some respects, partisan to a degree and strong in language rather than logic.

Someone has said that every twentieth Englishman is a genius and the balance dolts, or something of that tenor. The Special committee of the House of Lords, in its report recommending a radical change in that body, seems actuated by a desire to retain as many of the twentieth type as possible and eliminate the rest.

At present, this august body contains 618 members, consisting of the royal princes, the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, two dozen minor bishops, the English peers and those Scotch and Irish peers who have been elected by their fellows to represent the nobility of these respective countries.

The committee each of the colonies send elective peers; that the 24 bishops elect one-third of their number to the Lords at each Parliament. The Archbishops are to remain permanent features and about 130 hereditary peers are to be retained, including such as have held the position of Cabinet minister, or of Governor-General of Canada, or Viceroy of India or have enjoyed high positions in the army or navy; and all who have served for twenty years in the House of Commons. Five judges are to be added as “law lords” and of the remaining number 200 are to be elected as representative peers.

By this selective, as well as elective, method, the fittest in brains, skill and ability would survive. It is equally probable, however, that, so far as broad, progressive policies are concerned, a House of Lords so made up would be even a greater handicap to the popular will than as it stands today. The average Lord now accepts his seat therein with that nonchalance which characterizes his attitude toward those other favors of fortune which are his by birth. He feels no added pride and seldom any real obligation to interest himself in measures that come before the House. While he is an obstructionist, it is after a rather passive fashion. To change this so as to make a seat in the galaxy of Lords a prize to be contested for, while limiting the eligibles to the race in the arbitrary manner proposed, would inevitably mean a powerful governing body, supersaturated with class-consciousness and hyper-sensitive to the faintest breath against its own aristocratic dominance. The reactionaries would entrench themselves by electing the most brilliant men of their own views. The lonely members from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa would have slight influence in shaping the destiny of the Empire as a whole and none as to England’s domestic affairs. To public opinion, then, as now, the House of Lords would be almost impervious. How, indeed, can any set of men taught toregard themselves, from infancy, as superior beings, be affected by the ideas of the plebeians? They have always assumed their class to be the natural governor and guardian of the hoi polloi. If the H. P. doesn’t thrive, it’s not the fault of the nobility.

It is no wonder that the House of Lords itself should be shamed over the survival of a caste system which permits even an idiot, born to the purple, to share the honors and responsibilities of membership in the highest assembly of their government, but even those apologists who maintain that the Britisher of rank feels obligations to humanity as does no other public man must take fright at the proposed concentration of power the new plan would insure. Certes, after many years of thwarted hopes for bettering of general conditions, the patient English people could only rise, in holy wrath, and abolish the House of Lords altogether. And, as a real and permanent reform measure, why don’t they do it now?

“The toot of the Teuton is tootin’ no more,All sober sits Berlin, beside the wild Spree;”

The words of this classic were never more apropos. The ebullition of German indignation over their Kaiser’s indiscreet interview, published in the London Daily Telegraph recently, the salient features of which were summarized in the December Jeffersonian, has subsided and the hard words, as proverbial, have “broken no bones.” That something drastic should be done to prevent such outbreaks in future, as well as to reprimand the “Great War Lord” for the unfortunate garrulity, was the generally held, resentful opinion; butdoingit, was another matter, unless the mincing of words between the Emperor and his Imperial Chancellor could so be construed. After their meeting for the purpose of discussing the matter, Von Bulow announced to the Reichstag that he was convinced the Kaiser would hereafter “observe that reserve, even in private conversations, which is equally indispensable in the interest of a uniform policy, and for the authority of the Crown.” This assurance was further bolstered by an official publication that Emperor William “approved this statement” and “gave Prince Bulow the assurance of his continued confidence.” This pacification the Reichstag was apparently glad to accept, in lieu of a constitutional guarantee of a check upon the Kaiser. During the national hysteria, when all were alike guilty of lese-majeste, it was safe to join the popular clamor. In his official capacity, no member of the Reichstag seemed bold enough to attempt to storm the fortress of “Divine Right.” It would have required a now impossible unification of opposing forces in that body, under leadership fearless of the consequences to self, to have magnified the disturbance into a real revolution in the German government. So, on all sides, there was a refluencing tide of displeasure—but the water-mark will remain for many a day to show that patience has its limits even in a people of almost unexampled docility. And, after having enjoyed a very carnival of free speech, they will never again submit to the gagging which has heretofore obtained.

Whether the Kaiser feels the humiliation accredited to him or not, is rather doubtful. At any rate, he viewed the storm with superb outward indifference, causing it to be understood, while he was enjoying himself on a hunting trip with the heir to the Austrian throne, that hewas “heedless of the exaggerations of public criticism which he regarded as incorrect.” He is still The State—chance confidences with interviewers notwithstanding. But his subjects may not be quite so passive as before.

Freight Rates Increase

One of the strangest, strongest characters in history passed from the stage when the Dowager Empress of China, best known to us as Tsi An, yielded to Death—her only conqueror—some time in November last. Born a slave, the story of how her wit, beauty, determination and utter unscrupulousness placed an empire boasting at least 400,000,000 subjects at her feet, is well known. For fifty years she reigned an absolute despot, while other nations rose and fell, maps were changed, the tide of Occidental civilization began to beat down the ancient barriers of her realm. Knowing that the summons had come to her, did she yet stretch out her still powerful hand and remove the weakling Emperor, whose demise preceded her own by so short a time? A physical wreck—a virtual prisoner and perhaps the victim of some brain stupefying drug, there were still dangers to be feared to the dynasty she so long upheld, and all her record shows she would not have hesitated at any step necessary to preserve the reign of the Manchus and repel the efforts which reformers might make, through Tsai-ti’ien, to hasten forward a foreign type of government. Much evil is said of the Dowager Empress—and much evil perhaps she did, according to some standards; yet she selected her ministers with some wisdom and can scarcely be censured for refusing to let herself and the Chinese masses—both intensely conservative—be harried into “reforms” for which they were unprepared. The national and racial pride of such highly informed Chinese as had received not only the education appropriate to their class at home, but who had enjoyed foreign advantages, is in nowise typical—and it must be remembered that Tsi An was dealing with “teeming millions” indeed. She was not stubbornly unprogressive, as various Imperial edicts issued within the past decade demonstrated. Indeed, it was not long since that one assurance was given that a Constitution would be granted within nine years.

Prince Chun—named recently as regent, will link the ideas and methods of the ancient Pure Dynasty with those which must prevail long ere little Pu Yi, his baby Emperor, who toddled into the Manchu succession the other day, can take the reins of government for himself. The people have accepted the tiny monarch designed to continue the present dynasty with no ill will. Chinese discontent has been constant for lo! these centuries, for the Manchus are a foreign Mongol race, but the almost simultaneous deaths of the nominal ruler and his iron-willed aunt, andthe installation of a three-year-old as puppet king, made comparatively slight impression. Indeed, it is not likely that all China knows even yet that there has been any change, so slowly does news travel in some parts thereof. Under such torpid conditions, there may be uprisings against Viceroys in certain provinces, but anything like a general revolution will not in many years threaten the peace of the empire. The emancipation of China will come through enlightened rulers; or be deferred by intrigue within the Court. Three uprisings have taken place against the Manchu rule, but they were all before foreign interests and influence had intervened to give the yellow race a common cause against white aggression and patriotic Chinamen and Manchus will prefer a government by all the people rather than a mere change in the throne. Unless signs speedily fail, no real “crisis” is imminent.

“THE DONKEY IS A PATIENT ANIMAL.”—W. J. Bryan.New YorkWorld

“THE DONKEY IS A PATIENT ANIMAL.”—W. J. Bryan.

New YorkWorld

“The people of the United States hold for Japan a peculiar feeling of regard and friendship” wrote Theodore Roosevelt after the visit to himself and Elihu Root of Baron Kogoro Takahira, Japanese Ambassador, last September. After much that has seemed unnecessarily subterranean in the negotiations between Takahira and the Secretary of State, admissions have been wormed from official sources that these gentlemenhave consummated a pact that is variously regarded as a miracle of deft diplomacy; a dangerous entangling alliance or as a farcical declaration of non-binding intentions.

Subjected to examination, the “agreement” covers the following main points, stated in brief:

A mutual wish to “encourage the free and peaceful development of their commerce in the Pacific.”

Since the imperialistic idea is that peace is best preserved by being prepared for war, this “peaceful development” inevitably means to the United States a vastly increased naval burden. No less if Japan be honest than if she be insincere.

The second article declares for the maintenance of the existing status quo and the “defense of the principle of equal opportunity for commerce and industryin China.”

Has the Chinese boycott of Japanese goods anything to do with this? Takahira or Marquis Katsura, Japanese premier, please answer.

The third article obligates each nation to respect the territorial possessions in the Pacific of the other.

What territorial possessions has Uncle Sam save the Philippines, whose loss would be a good riddance?

The fourth article is nothing more than an elaboration of the second.

The fifth article reveals the purpose, the strength and the danger, of the understanding in that it pledges each government, should the present regulations in the Pacific be disturbed in anywise, “or the principle of equal opportunity, as above defined” be threatened, “to communicate with each other for the purpose of arriving at a mutual understanding with regard to the measures they may consider it useful to take.”

Realizing that no treaty outright could be made without Senatorial indorsement and that this would mean a departure from all American tradition and policy, Elihu Root has framed a skillful document which creates a binding promise to consult Japan in any issue that may arise, while it escapes the odium that would attach to an actual alliance now. The real alliance would be precipitated whenever emergency, real or seeming, made it easily and logically possible to invite the conference “with regard to the measures they may consider it useful to take.” It ties this American Republic to an Asiatic despotism in a manner both unseemly and unnecessary. Nothing is gained that we did not have and the sacrifice of our best traditions is saddening.

It is not so much the complications that are to be feared, even though Russia also fronts the Pacific; even though England and China have doubtless concluded an alliance of their own and even though other world powers have interests in the Orient which they jealously guard. Australia has long viewed Japan with doubt and aversion and the news of the step taken by the United States will probably shatter a real friendship, based upon white blood and mutual ideals, that could have been cemented between that independent colony and our government. Even though the agreement had no untoward consequence, it is a melancholy fact that the American people have surrendered their constitutional right to govern themselves or control their policies as to other nations. Mr. Root has formed an alliance binding in fact,—and evading, by subterfuge, any terms upon which the Senate could base an action.

In this, Mr. Root has again shown his famous sleight-of-hand performance, “Now you see it and now you don’t!” The intention to exploit China, by peaceful means, if possible, but to exploit, is clear; as is the understanding that Korea and the Philippines are to be left to their respective masters. Yet, scan the treaty again and it appears beautifully benevolent. It is indeed a piece of handiwork of which a corporation henchman may be proud as it more than sustains his reputation for ability to advise his clients how to make illegal moves without breaking the law. In the more elegant language of William C. Whitney, of New York, who was familiar with the promotion of divers deals: “I have had many lawyers tell me what we could not do, and what the law forbade. Elihu Root is the first Lawyer I ever had who could always tell me how to do legally what we wanted to do.”

The Treaty Making Power Lies With CongressBaltimoreSun

The Treaty Making Power Lies With Congress

BaltimoreSun

Such is the record of the man who is to succeed Thomas C. Platt, as Senator from New York, Timothy L. Woodruff having been forced gracefully to renounce his claims. It will be a relief to get rid of the disgusting septuagenarian, Platt; but is a profound pity his successor should not be a man in whom the people have confidence. Root has always been a wily corporation lawyer; he has just completed an alliance in contravention of the spirit of the Constitution and is being elevated to the Senate through Federal patronage.

He may serve his country well—but the leopard will have to change a good many of his spots.

“It was a bad year for the trusts,” wrote Edward Sherwood Meade, Professor of finance in the University of Pennsylvania, at the close of 1907. In support of his comment, Prof. Meade cited the $29,000,000 fine levied against the Standard Oil, of Indiana, by Judge K. M. Landis, and the proceedings instituted to dissolve the Oil and Tobacco trusts. As is well known, Judge Grosscup, of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, reversed Judge Landis on technicalities and the Company was saved from the imposition of the fine through what was universally execrated as a gross miscarriage of justice. Attorney-General Bonaparte at the time expressed himself freely in demanding of Congress the enactment of “a more comprehensive law permitting appeals by theGovernment in criminal cases,” instead of the present statutes which “give to the wealthy defendants in such cases an unfair advantage.” So 1907 was not such a bad year for the Standard Oil,—but a most profitable one, as the favor extended it in the Indiana suit enabled the stock of the Company to soar to nearly 700 forthwith.

The proceedings in the latter part of 1908 by the Government to dissolve the Standard Oil are the most important ever instituted against this odious monopoly. It is almost incredible that, after 20 years of immunity, John D. Rockefeller should be forced to “show cause” why he should no longer be allowed to pursue his taciturn, undisputed spoliations. Frank B. Kellog, champion “trust-buster” has charge of the investigations which thus far have presented something the appearance of opera bouffe. The figures juggled with are so enormous, and the “forgetfulness” of Rockefeller, Archbold and other testifiers such conspicuous examples of humorous insolence, that the public mind is unprepared to hope for a satisfactory outcome to the investigation. The present administration has but a couple of months more in which to make its denunciations against the Standard Oil effective, after years of apparently righteous wrath and no one is greatly to be blamed for adopting a cynical attitude as to the expected result.

Ithasbeen a bad year, this closing 1908, for the Tobacco folk. The victory of the tobacco growers of the Burley district of Kentucky early in December over the American Tobacco Company proves what a determined stand may accomplish on the part of the producer, without entering the Courts at all. It is safe to say that this Christmas will have been one of the happiest ever spent by the farmers of Kentucky, among whom some $20,000,000 will be circulating for tobacco grown and held over, some of it, for nearly two years. It will make for a peace and good-will in very truth, for the “night-riding” is considered at an end.

Capitulation to the tobacco growers of a limited section, however, is the least of the American Tobacco Company’s troubles just now, it having been declared, in suit brought by the government for its dissolution, to be a “combination in restraint of trade” which is amenable to the provisions of the Sherman Act of July 2, 1890. Appeal from this decision is being taken to the Supreme Court and upon the result of this “last resort” will hinge all that is vital in reference to the ability of the government to control the various kinds of industrial combinations engaged in inter-state traffic.

Judge Lacombe, in voicing the majority opinion of his Court, observes that: “By insensible degrees, under the operation of many causes, business, manufacturing and trading alike, has more and more developed a tendency towards larger aggregations of capital and more extensive combinations of individual enterprise. It is contended that, under existing conditions, in that way only can production be increased and cheapened, stability in reasonable prices secured and industrial progress assured. But every aggregation of individuals or of corporations, formerly independent, immediately upon its formation terminates an existing competition; whether or not some other competition may subsequently arise. The Act, as above construed, prohibits every contract or combination in restraint of competition.What benefits have come from this combination, or from others complained of, it is not material to inquire, nor need subsequent business methods be considered, nor the effects on production or prices.”

WashingtonHerald

Judge Noyes, who agreed with Judge Lacombe, says, in addition: “It is of much importance to many people at the present time whether the defendants have entered into an unlawful combination. It is OF THE MOST MOMENTOUS IMPORTANCE TO ALL THE PEOPLE FOR ALL THE TIME WHETHER THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT HAS POWER TO REACH INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS DEALING ACROSS STATE LINES.”

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Ward took the position that the purposes of the defendants “should not be made to depend upon occasional illegal or oppressive acts, but must be collected on their conduct as a whole.” That they strove “to increase their business and that their great success is a natural growth resulting from industry, intelligence and economy, doubtless largely helped by the volume of business and the great capital at command.”

What view will the Supreme Court take? That “restraint of trade”is“restraint of trade” or that that it isnot“restraint of trade” if only a few laws are broken, only a few competitors hurt and if defendants are not suffering for want of money?

Amid a fanfare of banjos, a rattling of “de bones” and the patting of the Juba, General Simon entered the Presidential Palace at Port-au-Prince, capitol and chief city of Hayti, early in December, thus triumphantly concluding a decisive rebellion during which Nord Alexis, recent dictator, was forced to flee for refuge to a French vessel. Simon’s election to the Presidency by the National Assembly will follow, as a matter of mere detail, providing neither General Firman, General Fouchard nor other “General” of opposing armies which contain no privates at all, pulls off another revolution before breakfast. This is a fearsome possibility, though, inasmuch as the countries to which these heroes may be induced to repair as ministers are limited; and the aspirants for the dictatorship are unlimited; besides, there may be a crop of the deposed ministers wending their way homeward to hatch up more plots—and how may all be pacified? Moreover, it had been six long, weary years since Hayti had any revolution to speak of and the appetite of the Black Republic for such diversions is not easily appeased. Serpent worship may pall and the charm of Voodoo rites wax monotonous. A chance to burn and pillage now and then helps amazingly to relieve the dulness of the island.

Hayti continues an object lesson in the progress that civilization makes when left to the care of the brother in black. It is a chunk of “Darkest Africa” left festering on the seas. The conditions there being so terrible, even in non-revolutionary periods, there are almost no white residents whose presence, in larger numbers, would force other governments to a summary clean-up of the nauseous spot. U. S. cruiser Tacoma has been dispatched to St. Marc and Gonaives to extend protection to those who may be in distress and to quell further threatened rioting.

How far practice had departed from the equitable principle that all remedy in the State Courts must be exhausted before complainants might appeal their case to the United States Courts, is emphasized by the impression amounting almost to a sensation, produced by the decision, on November 30th last by the Supreme Court covering the Virginia railway rate case, wherein an injunction had first been obtained by the corporation from a lower Federal Court, preventing the enforcement of the two-cent rate prescribed by the Railway Commission of the State. This restraining order was passed May 14, 1907, and the effect thereof was to prevent the exercise of the Railway Commission’s legitimate control over the passenger traffic of their State until now. The rebuke to Federal Judge Pritchard, who granted the injunction, in the reversal of his findings in favor of the railroad comes from a source which the American people have desired to esteem as their highest source of justice, and will have admirable effect. Not only will it do much to allay the irritation and the distrust which has been growing for many years against this tribunal, but it will have most salutary effect upon insolent Federal Judges and ruthless corporations. The injunction has been their sword and buckler. Ignoring the State Courts, they have rushed to obtain injunctions against the enforcement of any measure they happened to dislike. Armed with the premature mandate of a Federal officer, they have defied public opinion and the sovereign authoritywhich created and nurtured them. A firm check on the abuse of the injunction, had become a crying necessity, if the public were to respect wise injunctions and uphold the law.

The decision has been hailed with what could honestly be called “pleased surprise”—so many disappointments had led to the belief that corporate interests were obliged to triumph. Wide-spread approval has been accorded the ruling. In a few instances criticism has been proffered, to the effect that the points over which the case originally occurred are unsolved and that the question of railroad regulation is as misty as before. These are matters, however, which do not touch the principle of State’s redress first, which was universal before the misconstruction of the 14th Amendment made possible such usurpation of authority as the one for which Judge Pritchard has been called down.

Other interesting court decisions have taken place within a short period. The New Jersey Court of Appeals, for instance, has considered a knotty problem relative to its collateral inheritance law. Philo Miles, a British subject, died in London, leaving a considerable amount of stock in a New Jersey corporation and the lower courts held that the tax could be levied upon same. The Appellate Court negatived this conclusion on the ground that personal property which includes stocks and bonds must follow the situs of the owner and be taxed “there and there only.” They held that if every State could levy an inheritance tax upon the full estate of the deceased, his personal property being returned in the inventory of the executor or administrator, the estate of the deceased could be taxed as often as there were States in which he chanced to have personal property at the time of his death. This would, of course, be inconceivable.

It would be helpful to know just how England, which has a National and effective inheritance tax, will manage with the property held in New Jersey by the late Mr. Miles. Much of the wealth of her citizens is represented by stocks in American corporations, mortgages upon American property and like personal effects. Possibly the heirs are more scrupulous in returning such property for taxation than are our own rich men, who think no wrong of sending out of the State all personalty for long enough to swear tax statements that are true in the letter, but utterly false in fact. To evade municipal taxation, they do not hesitate to take their securities outside the corporate limits for a day or so. The owner of a home or farm may not escape bearing the burdens of government, but those who derive annual fortunes from dividends upon “personal property” go scatheless.

A national inheritance tax, with stringent provisions to enforce it, would go a long way toward evening things up.

A SOCIAL CALLNew York World

A SOCIAL CALL

New York World

TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORTThe hand of the law willget old John D. himself yet.—Minneapolis Journal.

TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT

The hand of the law willget old John D. himself yet.

—Minneapolis Journal.

Dainty and attractive are the naval maneuvers indulged in by the little Queen of Holland against the Venezuelan government these days. If not to the entire satisfaction of The Hague, at least they will win her high plaudits from the Red Cross Society. For where was ever such consideration shown as has been displayed by this firm, feminine foe to the blustering South American President? That he has been perfectly horrid to her, all will admit. It is true that he has been entirely within his rights in that trans-shipment decree, for the regulationof the internal commerce of his own country is a prerogative which the most modest executive might safely claim; but it is likewise indisputable that it has seriously crippled the thrifty Dutch merchants of Curacoa; and, anyhow, Castro need not have been so overbearing about it, which was no way to handle a situation of that delicacy. He should have admitted that he was wrong, begged forgiveness and then, of course,shecould have been no less magnanimous than to have told the sturdy burghers of Williamsted that they must cease to cry over the milk that somebody else had a right to spill; she would have outdone his courtesy by her sweetness and all would have been well. But some men even when Presidents, fail to understand that women are women, even when queens, and so he was uncouth when the situation simply begged fornoblesse oblige. Nevertheless, when Castro fell ill, Wilhelmina deferred her vengeance until he had gone to consult European surgeons. No rattling of guns or clanking of sabres if the enemy had a headache; no furore that might disturb the quiet of his citadel.

Now her fleet sails nattily over the Caribbean, to the vast interest of vice President Gomez, left in charge of Venezuela, and of the world at large. To coarse, husky individuals, this seems a strange proceeding, perhaps, but those cast in more delicate mold will realize that Wilhelmina kept the navy tied to her ample apron strings till now, lest the clatter of wooden sabots over the hard, white decks, might make Castro nervous.

Seriously, it seems that Holland is doing little more than making a demonstration the purpose of which is uncertain. After simmering so long, the trouble between the two countries could hardly cool off, with dignity to Holland, without revocation or modification of the shipping regulations, intervention by other powers or a goodly show of resentment. If Holland is saving her face by the latter means, who could be sorry? No one doubts the courage of her people, nor that they would be met by no mean resistance in attempting to shell the Venezuelan forts and brave blood should not be spilled in a cause that seems so entirely within the scope of arbitration.

That England in the present Century should be undergoing a hard-fought battle over the matter of religious control over her public schools proves the tenacity of sectarian clutch when Church and State join hands in bonds of government. The new educational bill which has passed a second reading in the House of Commons is a compromise measure which embraces a Nonconformist concession to the church of what is known as “the right of entry” which permits parents or guardians to request denominational instruction for their children during certain hours—teachers being expected to volunteer for this service. On its side, the church relinquishes control of the schools and the abolition of all religious tests for the teachers. The British public is still stolidly Episcopalian and that Church yields slowly any of its prerogatives. The bill, if enacted into law, will therefore not make in years any appreciable change in the practical status of the schools, but will enable those objecting to enforced religious teachings to have their sentiment respected. The use of public funds for denominational instruction is without doubt one of the most vicious forms of intellectual slavery to which any people may be forced to submit.

Yet this very slavery is openly advocated for America today by Cardinal Gibbons, of the Roman Catholic Church, who desires the public schools to be wholly denominational and supported by the government. Small wonder, then, that Mr. Roosevelt’s characterization as “bigotry” the refusal of anyone to vote for a Roman Catholic for the presidency has met with profound disapproval. Nowhere did he strike a “popular note” and protests have been dignified, but severe. In the selection of his creed, the citizen has been given unhampered choice, but in the restriction of those eligible to the high office of Chief Executive, the people will continue to consider the preservation of theirinstitutions of paramount importance. To democracy everywhere, and in all the ages, the Roman Church, as an organization, has been the consistent foe. Centralization of authority in the hands of puppet monarchs under its control is its undeviating aim. No man who can submit himself to the domination of a priesthood, and all that it means, could be a safe president of a free republic.

In candidacy for any office, a man must expect the opposition to make capital even out of his religious affiliations, and it is true a few silly Protestant preachers tried to do this in the case of Mr. Taft, a Unitarian, but that the general mass of people gave his faith any adverse thought is ridiculous. The Protestant vote divides along political lines just as do those voters of no creed at all.

After a 200 per cent stock dividend declared by one express company shortly ago and a surplus of some $30,000,000 in another, the announcement of a 90 per cent increase in certain express rates will be hailed with much joy. There seems to be a cheerful disposition on the part of these corporations to treat the public to the Roosevelt-Straus remedy for all monopolistic evil—publicity. At least, they are candid and without blush over their unconscionable extortions so, obviously, the admission that they have oppressed the public by unjust rates, and intend still greater encroachments, ought to be sufficient to quell the evil at once. Publicity, forsooth! So long as no actual infraction of any law is involved, why may not a monopoly increase its schedules to “all the traffic will bear?”

The only good publicity in this instance may do is to stimulate a dilatory and debilitated Congress to pass the Parcel Post enactment recommended by Roosevelt and urged by Postmaster-General Meyer. Since the express companies can annually “cut a melon” of enormous dividends; and since the postal deficit for the fiscal year has reached the sum of $16,910,000 it becomes probable that the long despised and antagonized parcels post will loom up as perhaps the most practicable means of helping the government out of the ditch.

How very curious it is that all the “wild ideas” of the Pops come, one by one, to be recognized as instances of wonderful foresight. If the parcels post is going to be a good thing for the government, and an invaluable thing for the common people in the future, it is pertinent to ponder on how much ahead the department might be at the present date, if the system had been adopted years ago. Instead of a deficit, there might have been a neat balance, or a possible surplus, for Mr. Meyer to offer as a result of the operations of the last fiscal year. Of course, the franking privilege has been grossly misused for the circulation of partisan literature favorable to the administration which got the spoils of office; and the railroads clean up their pile on the job of hauling the mails, but all these things but go to show that the postal department, instead of being an argument against the government taking over public utilities, is the strongest kind of an argument in favor of so doing. If the government owned the railroads, one avenue of dead loss would be closed; and likewise the elimination of railroad rings from control of the administration would remove the incentive to flood the mail with literature in the interests of such corporations and other monopolies.

Back to Index Next