Springfield weekly Republican. [volume], March 11, 1909, Page 2, Image 2

About Springfield weekly Republican. [volume] (Springfield, Mass.) 1851-1946

Image provided by: Boston Public Library

                
2
THE INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
President Taft’s inaugural address dif
fers in length and character from the
usual deliverance of the kind. It is five
times longer than President Roosevelt's
address of four years ago, and about
twice as long as the average since the
foundation of the government. It is ex
ceeded in extent only by the 8500-word
address of William Henry Harrison <ll
1841. which would have been longer but
for Daniel Webster’s editing and ruthless
slaughter of a great company of Roman
proconsuls that the military chieftain
as president-elect had introduced to forti
fy the warnings of history; anil it consid
erably exceeds in length President Polk's
address in 1845, which fell little short of
5<NN> words, and had ranked next longest
np to this time.
Mr Taft considers the office of an in
augural address to lie a presentation it:
outline of the main policies of the new
administration so far as they can be an
ticipated. This is an office more distinct
ly established by himself than by prece
dent. for these efforts of incoming presi
dents hhve as a rule been confined to very
brief and general allusion to public poli
cies which arc to be fallowed. But the
nation, more or less shaken and nerve
racked by a really strenuous administra
tion, has been looking for some definite in
dications -of what to expect from the new
regime, and President Taft has done what
he could to present them.
The policies which will particularly en
gage the favorable attention of the new
administration may be summarized for the
convenience of readers as follows:—
1. Relief of railroads from certain re
strictions of the federal antitrust act. and
imposition of restrictions on the issue of
stocks and bonds.
2. Greater co-operation between the de
partment of justice, the bureau of cor
porations and the interstate commerce
commission for more effective application
of regulative laws upon railroad and other
interstate corporations.
3. New antitrust legislation which shall
differentiate combinations based on legiti
mate economic reasons from those formed
with intent to create monopolies and con
trol prices—for the protection of the for
mer and suppression of the latter.
4. Tariff revision, at the earliest pos
sible moment, which will be generally in
a downward direction, with maximum afid
minimum rates to be applied against other
nations according as they do or do not
discriminate against American trade.
5. More revenue will probably be needed
than the revised tariff schedules will yield,
and federal inheritance taxes are favored.
6. The policy of conserving forests and
other natural resources, and developing in
terior water ways, will be continued.
7. So apparently of the Rooseveltian
ixdicy of a great navy and a “suitable”
army.
8. L‘gislation giving the federal courts
jurisdiction within the states in cases
where the treaty rights of aliens are in
volved.
9. Monetary reform along lines to be
indicated by the existing commission, and
postal savings banks.
10. Promotion of trade with the Philip
pines through tariff abolition, and with
South America through mail subsidies for
the establishment of direct steamship
lines.
11. Prosecution of work at Panama for
a <anal of the lock type.
12. Greater consideration of southern
feeling regarding the negro, particularly
in the appointment of negroes to office,
but without forgetting the 15th amend
ment and in the expectation that southern
state franchise legislation will cease to
discriminate against the illiterate blacks in
favor of illiterate whites.
13. The government as employer should
hold itself as responsible to injured em
ployes. as it now holds interstate car
riers.
14. Some modification of the power of
federal equity courts in the issue of in
junctions. as by the requirement of notice
in temporary orders, but no modification
which will essentially weaken the power
of these tribunals.
On the whole there is here presented a
general policy of moderation as well as of
progress. Jt should prove reassuring to
fearful business interests, as it probably
will, while it reflects for the new presi
dent a sympathetic interest in the cause of
reforms for the protection of the people
from the aggressions of syndicated capital
and the improvement of labor conditions.
Nor is there indication that the just rights
of the colored race are to be overlooked
or antagonized by the new administration.
Progress under the Taft regime will evi
dently be more distinguished for orderli
ness than for jolting speed.
PRESIDENT TAFT'S CABINET.
President's Taft's cabinet, being a fresh
creation such ns rhe country has not seen
since Mr McKinley succeeded Mr Cleve
land 12 years ago, may well command the
attention of the country as representing
the new president’s initial effort to trans
late his policies and principles into action.
While a cabinet is more or less the victim
of political vicissitudes and geographical
requirements, it also embodies a new
president's ideals of administration.
Mr Taft's cabinet, first of all, gives one
nu impression of conservatism, as wed
ns of solidity and ability. Its leading
members are drawn from the conservative
wings of the parties with which they
have affiliated. The four men who, aside
from the president, will be in a position
to exercise the greatest influence upon
genera) policies are Mr Knox, secretary
of state, Mr MacVeagh, secretary of the
treasury, Mr Dickinson, secretary of war.
and Mr Wickersham, attorney-general.
The others promise to be more particu
larly departmental officials, or. as in the
case of Mr Hitchcock, specialists in party
polities. Mr Knox may fairly be classed
among republican* as n moderate con
servative; while Mr Wickersham's profes
sional eqroer has given no sign of radical
lendeHeiea. Mr Dickinson and Mr Mac-
Veagh finally left the democratic* party
because the conservative wing had lost
control of it. The political radicalism of
Mr Bryan no less than his personality
was repugnant to them, am# one must
conclude that democratic conservative s
would not suddenly be transformed into
republican radicals merely by a change
of parly allegiance. These four men,
moreover, are naturally endowed with
eaußarvaiirc temperaments, which is to
be considered in connectijn with their
conservative training and associations in
life. Viewed by themselves, their gen
eral tendencies in thought and action
would not seem in the least doubtful; and
| it remains to be seen to what extent Mr
| Taft's own purpose to promote Roosevelt
। radicalism along safe and reasonable lines
‘ will control them.
The unusually large number of excep
i t tonally able lawyers in the cabinet is
| conspicuous and is much commented upon.
I No cabinet in many years lias been so
i rich in high-class legal talent, for. besides
l the president himself, Messrs Knox, Dick.
| iuson, Wickersham. Nagel and Ballinger
have achieved real distinction at the bar
lin their several states. The first four
have been eminent "corporation lawyers”
—the very type so much excoriated by
populistic orators since the days of Jerry
Simpson. Mrs Lease and Tom Watson.
A short time ago, the selection of such an
array of lawyers for a new president's
cabinet would have been regarded as po
litical suicide; indeed. President McKin
ley’s cabinet in 1897 did not include a
single lawyer of corporation affiliations,
nor did it acquire one of the first rank
until the imperative needs of war admin
istration introduced Elihu Root as Secre
tary Alger's successor. Mr Taft has
risked something in popularity, perhaps,
at the very outset, in making so many
selections of this sort, although his theory
seems sound and a successful administra
tion would thoroughly vindicate it in a
merely political sense. Mr Taft believes
that in order to fulfil one of the main ob
jects of his administration, in establishing
on a firm and equitable basis government
control ami supervision of vast industrial
and commercial corporations, he must
have the aid of lawyers who are fully
the match of the eminent and highly-paid
attorneys in the service of the corpora
tions themselves. That is reasonable, and
the nation's best citizenship will only
require that these men justify rlie presi
dent’s confidence in them as advisers and
lieutenants.
Rut the overwhelming predominance of
lawyers in the cabinet may be ascribed in
some degree to Mr Taft's personal prefer
ence for men of that profession; and it
may be that he has thus constituted his
official family in order to mark a differ
ence between his own administration and
that of his predecessor. Iu a recent ar
ticle on the ex-president. Mr Taft said:
"Mr Roosevelt never had the education
'and practice es a lawyer. His intense de
‘sire to reach practical results for good
‘has made him at times impatient of the
'restraint of legal methods, while I have
‘been trained as a lawyer and a judge and
'am as strongly imbued with the necessity
‘for legal methods as 11 years on the
‘bench are likely to make one.” May we
not infer that Mr Taft's heavy artillery
of lawyers carries to the country the mes
sage that his own administration will not
be "impatient of the restraint of legal
‘methods,” and that he proposes to dem
onstrate that reform is not inconsistent
with fidelity to the constitution, orderly,
legal procedure and respect for the courts?
Individually, the cabinet will easily meet
the usual administrative demands upon
it. Its average ability is high. Due
or two of its members, who are now but
slightly known to the general public, may
be expected to make a strong impression
upon the country and to achieve brilliant
national reputations. Mr Knox, whose ca
reer hitherto has been a crescendo of suc
cesses, may be merely at the beginning of
his most important service. It would not
be fully in accord with the facts, how
ever, to conclude this review of the new
cabinet by assorting that it possesses ex
traordinary political strength, for it con
tains no representative of the more radical
element in the republican party, which has
its chief influence in the middle West, and
which mny look with distrust upon an ad
ministration thus formed until its perform
ance affords convincing proof that it will
really “clinch my policies.” Right here
is the chief element of danger to the Taft
administration, it appears. It must live
and work with the radical wing, although
it begins by placing a much more moder
ate and conservative, but not reactionary,
element in control of the government.
MR ROOSEVELT, 1901—1909,
Having read innumerable reviews and
“estimates” of Mr Roosevelt’s adminis
tration. in various monthly, weekly and
daily publications, the past fortnight, The
Republican reached the historic morning
of March 4. 1909, with a deep sense of
the utter inadequacy of the human mind
in the presence of such a task as that
of assigning to the outgoing president hi>
“place jn history.” The final estimate of
posterity will be about midway, perhaps,
between the Outlook's and the New York
Sun's. Bnt this is a view which, like all
other views, should not be forced upon the
world. There is too much to be said.
If one only knew what was to happen
in the next 10 or 20 years, he could do
much better in making estimates of the
final historical significance of a contem
porary's work, but the future is unknown.
Suppose momentous events should come
in the next two or three administra
tions. How deep the shadows might be
which they would cast upon Mr Roose
velt's term of office no one could even sur
mise, hut they would make an immense
difference with the historical perspective
to those who tire destined some time to
look back over the 20th century. History,
looking backward, sees from mountain
peak to mountain peak; and the greatest
historical figures arc the men whose work
happened to bo done on the peaks. In
brief, one must be personally identified
with tremendous events to attain very high
rank in history. Washington was thus
idetdifiisl; Lincoln was. So were Bis
tnnrck, Napoleon and Cromwell. Whether
Mr Roosevelt has been, even in n small de
gree, is doubly difficult to determine be
cause wo cannot know what is to come
after him.
His work is not easily judged al this
time, moreover, because its results are not
fully known. There is extreme bitterness
among his critics, on the ode side; aud
extreme adulation amoqg his admirers, on
the other; and they are having their say
without knowing wbnf the completed work
will really omount to. It is. in a jiecnliar
sense, difficult to judge a man so e^trflv
agently popular, for no president has ever
left office so much idolized as this man.
AU angles of vision seem more or Vss ,
distorted by the affection or passion with j
which he is almost universally regarded. ,
The actual results must finally be gifted;
the secret historical records must be Jaid ■
THE SPRINGFIELD WEEKLY REPUBLICAN: THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1909.
i bare. the affections and passions must
; cool before the verdict can be found.
But, whatever the ultimate estimate of
Mr Roosevelt and his administration mny
bo, there are some things which are not
left doubtful. He bus vividly impressed
1 the imagination of the people of his time
I and his extraordinarily complex personality
| makes him out of the most interesting men
• ever in the service of the republic.
I THE NEW COPYRIGHT LAW.
In the haste of disposing of accunm-
I lated business in the last days of the eon
' gressional sittings, the comprehensive copy
right law which lias for so long been
; hanging fire got through with much less
: attention than its importance deserves, but
: the beneficial results of the protracted dis.
I mission in committee appear in the final
; form taken by the bill. On general prill
| ciples there is much to be said on the sidu
1 of those members who protested against
I railroading so important and complex u
bill through Congress without a reading
and discussion on the floor. As one of the
protestants said. Congress would not take
in this fashion the opinion of a committee
|on the codification of the penal code. If
the committees from House and Senate
had been incompetent, negligent, or sus
ceptible to improper influences, the results
would have been disastrous. As originally
drafted the copyright bill, as Tim Repub
lican pointed out with much detail, was
intolerable, obviously framed to suit spe
cial interests and giving scant regard to
the, public welfare. Moreover, the early
hearings before the committee gave repre
sentation to the various organized interests
involved, but the public, not being organ
ized. was unrepresented. These defects
were fully shown by Tin 1 Republican, ami
generally speaking every change asked
for has been made. The chairman of the
committee. Representative Currier of New
Hampshire, has shown n firm grasp of the
principles involved and a disposition at
every point to consider the general wel
fare of the country.
Among the most audacious demands first
made was a provision that the holder of a
copyright could control the re-sale of
books, so that the purchaser of a volume
could not dispose of it for money without,
permission. This clause was done away
with in committee. Another provision
asked for by publishers forbade the im
portation of foreign copies of books copy
righted in this country, except under very
limited conditions. This would have had
the effect of preventing the book-lover
from obtaining original editions of foreign
works. By the sensible compromise adopt
ed. only American books are now so pro
tected, which is quite proper. Both libra
ries and individuals may import a single
copy at one time of foreign books for use
and not for sale. Another point much dis
cussed was the duration of copyright; in
the original-draft protection was to last
during the lifetime of the author, with
provision for renewal. The objections to
this were shown by The Republican, and
the amended form seems unexceptionable;
it leaves the present original term of 28
years unchanged, but provides for a re
newal of 28 years instead of 14, ns at
present, giving a total of 56 instead of 42
years, so that only very precocious and
long-lived authors are likely to see their
early copyrights expiring in their declin
ing days.
The new law is a codification as well
as a revision, and it defines more fully
the classes of works susceptible of copy
right. Among these are included lectures,
sermons, addresses prepared for oral de
livery. "dramatico-niusical” compositions,
reproductions of works of art, pictorial
illustrations, etc. An analysis of these pro
visions cannot as yet be undertaken, and
very likely some cases will arise to test
the wording of the law; such classifications
are apt to give rise to debatable ques
tions. It has evidently been the purpose
of the framers of the statute to meet
modern conditions ami extend to niany
kinds of original intellectual work the pro
tection given in older days to "writings”
; in the narrow sense. The chief contro
versy in the later committee meetings has
been over the "canned music” question,
and here, too, the course followed is that
advocated by- The Republican. It involves
a compromise between giving the musical
composer no income from the use of his
works by automatic instruments, and play
ing into the hands of the trust which was
said to be only waiting the passage of a
copyright law to drive competing manu
facturers of automatic instruments out of
the field.
The law on this point raises, it must; be
said, an interesting point of constitutional
ity which seems to have passed unnoticed
by objectors on the floor of the House.
By the terms of the new law a composer
may if he chooses refuse to allow his works
to be reproduced by graphophoues or self
playing instruments. But if he gives per
mission to any maker then all other mak
ers may also reproduce his music by pay
ing a flat, royalty of two cents per copy.
Titis point was practically the only one
debated in Congress, and the hurried, shal
low nature of the discussion by legislators
who had not gone into the subject and hud
but a minute or two for a helpless floun
dering word appears from this extract
from the record:—
Mr Hughes of New Jersey. As I under
stand, under the terms of this bill—and
this constitutes my chief objection to it—
the most popular composer m the country
cannot get more under that section than
the merest tyro.
Mr Currier. Oh. the gentleman is abso
utely mistaken. That works automatical
ly. The merest tyro may compose some
thing. ami they would only be able to sell
. 200 or 3tXl copies of the reproducing device.
1 In the case of a |K>pular piece of music
they would sell from 1.900,000 to 2.000,090
| copies. Tako a popular soug, and thev
I would sell 2.000.000 copies. 2.000,000 of
these reproducing devices, which would
i give to the composer, at two cents earn,
140.000.
Mr Hughes of New Jersey. Still it is
true that the price is the same to each.
Mr Currier. The committee, after a long
i investigation, felt that wax the only way
it could be done. And let me say that it
amounts to about 5 per cent probably on
the selling price, covering the whole field.
Mr Griggs. Do I understand the gentle
man to say that both sides have agreed
to this proposition?
Mr Currier. It is absolutely unanimous.
Mr Gaines of Tennessee. I see on page
8 you say that some great music monopoly
is going to attempt to take charge of some
thing.
Mr Currier. Oh. if I bad the time -that
■ is all stated in the report.
Mr Gaines of Tennessee. Is there any
thing in this bill that prevents that monop
oly?
Mr Currier, Absolutely.
Mr Gaines of Tennessee. What?
I Mr Currier. The provision that anv per
son may reproduce without any authority
, upon the payment of the royalty. ’
1 Mr Sulzer. It treats everybody alike. I
| Mr Currier. Mny 1 stale, iu answer to
! the question which was asked some time
| about this matter of controling prop
erty rights, the first great copyright case
decided in this country was the Wheaton '
ease, and in deciding that ease rhe su-
J preme court say this about copyrights:—
No one can deny tint when the Legisla
ture are about to vest an exclusive right in
an author or Inventor. they have the power
to prewribe the conditions on which sm-h
light shall he enjoyed, amt that no one
I'onn avail himself of such right who does not '
i sutistanttally eompir with the requisitions
. of the law.
" hile we cannot legislate out of existence .
an .v existing right, for that would impair
the obligation of n contract, we are not
legislating regarding existing rights; we
are creating new rights, and we may at- i
tach to those new property rights any re
strictions that we please. [Applause.l -
But it seems to have escaped notice that
this provision directly controverts the con
■ tention of publishers that copyrighted pro
' tection in its very nature involves monop
: oly. It has been urged in behalf of such
I monopoly that the copyright law of the
: United States rests entirely on the author-
I ity granted by the constitution "to promote
‘the progress of science and useful arts, by
'securing for limited times, to authors and
'inventors, the exclusive right to their re
‘spective writings mid discoveries." The
phrasing is fatal to the perpetual copy
right Mark Tfvain wants, and the word
"writing” has played an important part
in the opposition to copyright on "canned
‘music"—is a disc or record a writing? But
this clause lias also been used to support
the theory that Congress must cither give
to authors an "exclusive" right or none at
all. But the rights granted to composers
under the new law can hardly be called
exclusive, In spite of the provision that
they may forbid entirely, if they choose,
the reproduction of their works. The new
law at this point ignores the contention
of publishers that copyright must be
a monopoly, and it affords an interesting
precedent for possible future legislation in
the ease of patents. If n tendency should
appear to abuse patent monopolies too
flagrantly there is likely to be a demand
for laws throwing inventions open to gen
eral use and rewarding the inventor in
some other fashion than by a complete
monopoly which in most cases soon passes
into the hands of others.
The least satisfactory part of the new
laW is the so-called "manufacturing clause.”
and here no doubt many of those who ac
cepted the bill did so reluctantly. The
proper place for protecting the American
printing industry, in so far as protection
is needful, is in the tariff laws. If books
can be made so cheaply abroad that the
printing art cannot thrive here, t|\e dif
ference ip the scale of wages can be made
up l>y whatever duty is necessary. But it
is not seemly nor good for the country to
compel foreign publishers to send their
works to this country to be set np in type
aud to have their engravings and litho
graphs made here, no matter if foreign
workmen are more skilful. Fair competi
tion is all that American brains ought Io
ask for. This selfish stipulation, ns Prof
Muensterberg has pointed out. is one of
the things that keeps America remote and
provincial, so thaf an American book is
never seen iu Europe. The new law makes
an exception in favor of books in foreign
languages, but English books must still be
set up in this “country. Illustrations 6f
foreign scenes'’may also he made abroad:
Such a hill tS"ln the nature of the case
a compromise between conflicting interests,
and in general the compromise seems ju
dicious. Excessive demands for special in
terests have been abated, the reasonable
protection of the actual author has been
considered, and public expediency lias not
been ignored. If there are serious flaws
they have not as yet been brought to
light.
MILITARISM AND THE TREASURY.
It is not merely an empty treasury
which President Roosevelt bequeathed to
bis beloved successor. The government
during the, Roosevelt ascendency has been
so far committed to an extravagant
militarism and to a host of minor activi
ties that even an unsympathetic succes
sor would find the situation extremely dif
ficult to handle. But Mr Taft assumes a
sympathetic attitude, and then there is
nothing to do save urge new sources of
rerehue nnd more taxation. The 'way
the Roosevelt regime sentterod the public
money in disdainful disregard of present
and future supplies is a feature which
will be better understood in the near
future Ilian it has been in the near past.
We no longer have to look to the op
position party in Congress for critical re
views of a session's appropriations. The
republican leaders now supply them.
Chairman Tawney of the House appro
priations committee submitted a budget
review in the closing hours of the late
session which could not possibly lie ex
ceeded in critical severity by the demo
crats themselves. He tells a story of
effort to keep expenses within the rev
enue, which was put forth largely in
vuin against the influences of the admin
istration aud the indifference of the pub
lic press. Although expenditures are row
running from 8125,000,000 to $150,000,-
900 in excess of revenues, the executive
departments of the government submitted
larger estimates for next fiscal year than
Over. These were trimmed down to a
grand appropriation total of $1,044,014.-
298 by the late session; but estimated
revenues for next fiscal year aggregate
only about sß2s,34o,ooo—leaving a prob
able deficit of above $299,009,009, and the
treasury will start on that fiscal year i < xt
July practically gutted of surplus funds.
And town rd such .a startling situation
the late administration was working<‘Mrly
and late without a whisper to be heard
of how it was to be met. If the ndmin
i istration hod had its way altogether, die
. clares Mr Tawney in effect, the govern
j nient would now be selling bonds to meet
current outgoes. “That the people have
' ‘thus far been saved from that unfortunate
‘situation is not due to any effort or
' 'recommendation of the executive branch
, 'of the government,” he says, mid he re
। peats this nt several points in bis speech;
; Nor does ho hesitate to direct public at-
I tention to the policy which is mainly re
j sponsible for this great deficit-producing
i expansion iu government costs. It is mili
' tariMin, and along with that lias gone
federal absorption of state functions. Buys
Mi Tawney; —
Mr Speaker, men may study mid specu
late as to the causes of our rapidly In
creasing national expenditures. Theymqy
attribute this Increase to national devei
opinent and the imsition which, ns a na
tion. we occupy among the nations of the
world. They may seek Io justify it upon
any ground, hut an analysis of oar
expenditures during the past decade ■
proves conclusively that the primary cause
for this increase is the tendency upon the
part of our people toward militarism and
in favor of the exercise by the federal
goyernmclit of rights and functions be- .
longing exclusively to the states.
He shows that army appropriations re- !
mtiined around $24,900,090 a year from I
1891 to 1898: and that since 1906, in a :
time of profound pence, they have in
creased from about S7O.OOO.tXMI to the '
$101,000,009 now appropriated. Naval tip-;
propriations increased only from about
$24,000,000 in 1891 to $30,000,000 in 1897:
but since the Spanish war or even since
1003 they have Increased from $78,800,- |
090 to $136,900,900.
Here nre the present appropriations on
iiceouut of past wars and wars that may
mid need not come:—
Army $101.1117.470
fort bleat ions H. 170,111
Mllltnrv nendeniy 2.531,521
Navy 186.035. W i
Pension 160,008,000 ;
In addition to which are appropriations •
in other bills, chargeable to military ex- >
penditures. aggregating $116,000,000,
making a total yearly cost on account of
militarism of $525,700,000 —or more than
one-half of the total costs of the Ameri
can government.
How much further is this mania for
huge armaments in imitation of Europe
to be allowed to carry the nation? If the
masses of the people nre left indifferent
by a federal tax system which plucks the
goose without its lively knowledge, how
about the wealthy mid influential classes
who now fnc? the prospect of drastic in
heritance taxes, federal added to state,
to maintain these demonstrations of war
power in time of peace? Are they not in
the way of getting their fill of this “worid
■power” foolishness? Do they want grad
uated federal income taxes piled on top
of graded inheritance levies?
THE JURY AND DEATH PENALTY.
It Iras already been noted in these col
umns that a bill is before the Legisla
ture on favorable report of the judiciary
committee permitting juries in capital
cases to add "without capital punlshnient”
to their affirmative verdicts. That such a
measure as this will go far toward the
practical abolition of the death penalty
will be generally admitted: and it will ac
cordingly receive the support of the op
ponents of capital punishment. But it is
not primarily their measure. It comes
from those adherents of the extreme pen
alty iu capital cases, who recognize the
practical difficulties in the way of its cer
tain and impartial application;for it is well
known that :i growing disposition exists
on the part of juries to let a fairly dem
onstrated first degree murderer escape
altogether rather than to have any part
in sending him to his death.
There is thus a strong possibility that
the measure may be enacted into law at
this session. Noting a revival in English
law journals of the controversy oyer capi
tal punishment. Law Notes, a legal pub
lication of Northport, N. Y., presents some
observations which are very pertiuent in
tins connection :—
Another line of approach mny suggest
the advisability of carefully weighing our
traditional attitude on capital punishment
—its indirect effect bn the jury called upon
to determine tlie guilt of a mun accused
of murder. The modern juror is a very
different individual from the jurbr who a
hundred years ago was called on to as
sist iu the administration of the law.
Whatever his faults, lie was not. he eould
not have been in the conditions of contem
porary life, moved by a nervous horror of
inflicting capital punishment. The growth
of humanitarianism, the shrinking from
all forms of physical pain and suffering
for others, is one of the most remarkable
pllenomena of file 19th century. The his
tory of legislation and of vbhintary hu
manitarian effort during that period every
where show its active growth. In an nge
saturated with these feelings the modern
juror is reared. In such a state of mind,
it is natural and inevitable that he should
look at every bit of testimony introduced
in the light of this prepossession. He
mny wish to give a verdict according to
the facts, but the sentiment which lias
preoccupied his mind prevents bis seeing
the facts as they are and impels him to
receive any possible view of the evidence
favorable to the prisoner, and to listen
with sympathy to absurd nnd sophistical
arguments from his counsel. As a conse
quence murderers nre acquitted just be
cause of the heinousness of the offense
mid the severity of the punishment.
This is a searifiiing exposition of the
situation wo have to Heal with. It is a
condition which confronts us, so tolling
against the possibility of a just aud im
partial application of the death penalty,
that the most zealous partisans of lex
talionis must be compelled to pause and
reconsider the matter.
It bus been urged that this proposed
law represents an attempt by the oppo
nents of capital punishment to achieve
their end in a devious and hidden way.
Such, of course, is not the ease, as lias
been siiid. This is a funeral, so to speak,
for the eye-for-eye, life-for-life people: the
situation crying for remedy is the creation
of their policy, and it is incumbent upon
them to deni with it in soule effective num
tier. The position of opponents of capital
punishment in the matter will be simply
that of helpers to the others if! backing
out of the impasse where the death-penalty
policy under changing social and humani
tarian coiiditiona has led them. The
abolitionists in this controversy have
never been and are not now afraid to
present theit* cause squarely on its merits;
nor have they ever bwn given to indirect
methods in achieving their end. If they
are now asked to stand forth mid justify
their position they Cun quote the lute Sir
William Vernon Harcourt, whose speech
on the subject in the House of Uoimuons
has lately been recalled and partially pub
lished in the London Luw Times:—
We have remitted the punishment of
denth lor many offenses, mid we are not
In a uutse position than before, and it
is therefore fair to nsk: If the punishment
did not prevent men from steiiliug horses,
why is it more likely to prevent them from
eonunittiug murder? Alurder is generally
committed under the influence of violent
passion, and, if it is foimd thnt the pun
ishment of denth does not deter in cases
of crimes which are committed in cold
blood, is it possible—is it reasonable—to
suppose that it will net ns a greater de
terrent in the ease of murder? As I be
lieve we may dispense with the'penalty
of death, even in the highest of nil crimes,
without nny injury to the safety of so.
ciety. I shall vote for its nbolilion.
But it is not to he forgotten that the
legishitive bill in question is hot an tiboli
iion measure. The dentil Jienalty would
still remain a law of the state, subject
only to remission in tin? tUscmion of the
jury. In eases of n particqlnriy ng„-ni
vntiug nature, possessing qo extenimthig
cireumstimcva or elements of doubt, it
would continue to lie iijqdied to such an
extent ns public sentiment furors. While
in practical effect it.will bring about fewer
state killings, its purpose is to diminish
the miscarriage of justice in capital cases, i
and that it will be effective for this pur- j
pose we have no surt of doubt.
VILLAGE AND COUNTRY REVIVAL. I
“Wanted—a Substitute for the Revival." 1
Snell was the title of an article in the ,
Congregationalist, a few months ago, ami
it is pertinent in connection witli the bnsi-,
ness-like campaign which has linen curried
ou in this city, ns in Boston just before, i
Tills type of revival is of course only pus- I
sible in large towns, where there can he ,
a systematic marshaling of certain furies ■
in what nre called evangelistic cliurehe.c ■
The Christians who are called liberal, the :
Unitarians and Universalists, are not in ।
tills category. The Roman church is cf I
course outside— unfortunately; und the
Protestant Episcopal church adheres to
the idea that the religious temper und the
Christian result should grow steadily, and
not by excitation. But many sorts of
people are reached in those big revivals
in the cities, aud thus they achieve their
effects, whether temporary or permanent,
us the eud may prove.
In the Congregationalist article to which
reference is made, Prof Fiske of Oberlin
theological seminary—where doubtless the
tradition of Charles G. Finney is yet cher
ished—touches on the problem of the small
congregation in the village, or small town.
Prof Fiske told the inquiring pastor of
.such a church that “where tent-meetings
unj revival machinery fail, try system
‘title brothei liness." Now that seems an
excellent bit of advice, and. its superior
value is that it is good at all times.
There cun never be nny error in follow
ing it. If the outgoing of real Christian
fi Howship and 1< ve and faith, and the
steady practice of the virtues of life stim
ulated by Godward desire, have no effect,
it would indeed be strange. But that is
just where the good people lack. The
church doesn't stand for brotherhood its it
should. It tells the outsiders that they
ought to get inside, but does not help them
to care for that, since it indicates a sense
of "holier than thou." Any one who has
gone through the revival experiment iu a
village or country parish knows that tbe
principle of if is wrong.
ITof Fiske thinks the root of suc
cessful life in religion in such places
and neighborhoods is in individual and
personal devotion on the part of Chinch
members, and individual and personal
approach to those whom these want
to reinforce their ranks in the wor
ship of Goli on a high plane. The first
tiling then, is to lift the members np io
such a plane. Prof Fiske said:—
TLe individual method seems slower, less
spectacular, possibly less interesting than
the wholesale method, though I think not.
But it is significant that when Jesus had
failed in the wholesale revival iu Galilee
and Judea he found his permanent success
in bis persv.tal work with his disciples.
The revival method is by no means anti
quated yet. It is still remarkably success
ful tinder certain conditions. But lacking
these conditions it fails. The personal
method, however, will nowhere utterly
fail. It will succeed in proportion to its
earnestness, simplicity, friendliness, gen
uineness.
Hore are sortie hints worth thinking over.
And the whole countryside, especially in
<nir mountain towns, needs n revival of
this sort, it is in fact the oiily one they
<an hope to gain from. As the ^professor
concludes his brief homily: “Then, a live
‘clmrcli, unquestionably serving its com
‘munity and proving its faith by its works,
‘will be a winning clmrch. It may even
‘restore the local faith in the reality of
‘n sane revival!”
FUTURE OF THE PRESIDENCY.
The American presidency theoretically is
rigidly restrained in its Bcope and power
by constitutional liniitations, but the ex
perience the nation has had with 26 presi
dents has proved that the office may ex
pand or contract in importance according
to the character of the occupant and the
popularity he enjoys among the people.
While the extreme length to which the
powers of the office eould be stretched, un
der certain conditions, has never been de
termined, the simple fact that this elastic
ity exists in practice was never clearer
thirn it is to-day, and it can never be for
gotten hereafter by those who observe
intelligently the working of our institu
tions.
In the past the presidency has had its
ups and down, compared witli the co
ordinate branches of government, for there
were the periods of dominating personality
under Jefferson and Jackson, and the
period of abasement for the executive un
der Johnson. Like urchins on a teeter
board, Congress and the president have
faced each other, the one going up as the
other goes down, and thus history has
been made. What of the future? Are we
ever again to see the presidency fall iu
tile favor of the people, while the co
ordinate branch assumes a larger measure
of mastery and leadership? Precedent
may say “yes,” but precedent avails noth
ing without the support of events and
conditions. The future of the presidency,
iu short, will depend upon the^men who
occupy it and the favor they may gain
among the masses. Hitherto, it has so
happened that a Jefferson has been suc
ceeded by a Madison, a Jackson by a Van
Buren and a Lincoln by a Johnson; there
has been no succession of men in the presi
dency, through a considerable period, each
of whom was in his own peculiar way a
genius iu captivating the popular imagina
tion and in gathering to himself thnt pop
ular support which overawes Congress and
smothers effective opposition. How fortu
uute the republic has been in this fact,
from the constitutional point of view, will
nut be disputed by those who wish our
systeui of government to remain one of
divided powers and executive limitations,
for a long succession of popular heroes in
tlie presidency, each in ^twn pressing his
prerogatives to their extreme limits, might
easily rush tlie republic into a form of
Caesarism.
Caesar was tlie most popular man in
Rome when lie was murdered, nnd the
Senate was mnible to withstand hia suc
cessors in the leadership of the jiopular
party. The empire founded by Augustus
was, in form, largely a government by the
Kemite which hinl chosen a president for
life. The other day Gov Fort of New Jer
sey said, in n public address, that he be
lieved in Jjaving presidents of the United
States elected for life. Popular pnlrtleH
oftou have fottndeil empires cm the ruins
es republics. Bonaparte captured the pop
ular imagimiiiou of revolutionary France
by his military glory; the third Napoleon
was first elected president, and when he
made himself an emperor, tbe masses ac-
1 quiesced. Au emiusror. made out of a
I republican executive, usually passes
I through certain stages—first, he is the idol
| of the masses; second, be is made csecu*
i five for life; third, he crowns hiuwelf and
I talks about "my {lecqile.” ,
Now. uotbmg of this sort has yet bnp
. peued in America and it is not expected
to happen; but the republic never existed
i and never will exist, in which n single
executive is granted enormous pow ers, that
। may not be subjected to the risks of de
' vedopments in that direction. Given the
I office, with its tremendous opportunities
i in action, and a succession of men gifted
। in using its powers and utilizing its op
portunities in a way to appeal to the fancy
I of the people, and the prime elements of
| an imperialist evolution are at hand. For
I popular idolatry for an individual can
never be strictly consistent in theory with
democratic ideas of government cast iu
a republican form. Hero worship is an
emotion, and it cannot be carried beyond
a certain point without weakening the
foundations of n government by the peo
ple themselves.
As Mr Taft enters office, every one must
wish him success in his administration,
but, if his presidency inspires somewhat
less hero worship than that of his prede
cessor. it will Ive to the ultimate advan
tage of the republic. The country since
1897 has had very popular presidents; iu
fact, Mr McKinley in tile last year or two
of his service seemed so popular that no
successor could hope to' surpass him in
this respect. Yet we have seen the pop
ularity of McKinley pale into insignificance
during the seven years of Rooseveltism,
mid the result is that for 12 yeprs the
presidency lias steadily augmented its pop
ular prestige at the expense of the other
branches of the government. If Mr Taft
could surpass Mr Roosevelt's popularity
to the same extent that Mr Roosevelt did
Mr McKinley's, the effects upon the pub
lic mind in relation to the constitutional
restraints upon the executive office would
undoubtedly be grave indeed.
In any event. Mr Taft's administration
cannot fail to have a real influence upon
the future of the presidency; and it will
be agreed, probably, by sober-minded cit
izeus that if he is much less dramatic,
spectacular and sehsational than his prede
cessor he will serve the country to the
greater advantage, and leave it in calmer
and safer waters when the hour for his
own retirement conies.
TAFT AND BRITISH ARMAMENTS.
The British ministry's most difficult
problem at the present moment is the
question of tlie coming year's naval pro
gram. The liberal party is as much di
vided as the ministry itself, for the radi
cal and imperialistic wings hold contrary
views concerning the demands of the serv
ice experts and the alarmist press for
the construction of six new Dread
noughts. The cabinet evidently must
choose between the two sides and the
policies they stand for. If it decides for
the six Dreadnoughts, it will yield to
the nation's hysteria over Germany and
abandon all pretense of keeping in check
the craze for larger armaments; and this
must involve a serious impairment of tlie
government's ability to finance its
schemes of social betterment while keep
ing taxation on a free-trade basis. The
radical wing, being alive to the peril
to their social-reform policy, are clamor
ing for a naval program of only four new
Dreadnoughts, which would permit them
with much greater facility to initiate
public measures for the solution of the
problems of unemployment, pauperism,
land taxation, town bousing and the like;
and, in their straits, they have urged
the government to eliminate the United
States navy from the equation represent
ed by the accepted British formula of the
two-power standard.
It now develops that President Taft's
discussion of armaments in liis inaugural
address has been discouraging to tbe rad
ical section of the cabinet and the lib
eral party. Tbe president's references
to this subject have attracted but slight
attention nt home, although he took spe
cial pains to indorse all that bis predeces
sor had said on the question; but iu
England, wberq the issue is just now
very acute, President Taft's declara
tion of policy concerning armaments was
immediately and closely scrutinized. No
passage was found in which the interna
tional competition, iu war preparation was
condemned or even questioned as an un
fortunate tendency; nor was there in the
address the slightest encouragement for
disnrnniment schemes. British readers,
on the contrary, encountered such senti
ments as these:—
My distinguished predecessor has in
many speeches and messages set out with
gteut force aud striking language the
necessity for maintaining a strong navy
rotnmeusiirute with the coast line, the
govern men tn I resources, nnd tlie foreign
trade of our nation; mid I wish to reiter
ate all the reasons which he has present
ed in favor of the policy of maintaining
a strong navy as the best conservator of
our pence with other nations.
.... But we should lie blind to exist
ing conditions and should allow ourselves
t > become foolish idealists if we did not
realize that with nil the nations of the
world armed and prepared for war we
must be oursel.vea in n similar condition
in order to prevent other nations from
Inking advantage of us. and of our in
ability to defend iwr interests and assert
our rights with a strong bund.
Wo Americans in recent years have
grown so hcmstomeil to vivid, almost pas
sionate appeals for great nnvnl nrma
miut, from the president of the United
States, that Mr Taft's rather prosy nnd
uniutlnnied reiteration of Mr Roosevelt’s
sentiments, really seemed to hove a touch
of moderation that pointed possibly to a
more conservative policy. While lan
guage is used to convey thought, much
is left sometimes to.be interpreted; and
It is difficult to believe that President
Taft has tho navy mania in the same de
gree of intensity as his predecessor.
Bearing this in mind, it is possible that
President Taft's inaugural address lias
been misinterpreted abroad, yet it is not
to be denied thnt the immediate effect
lies been most depressing to the English
opponents of rapid, naval increase. One
of the leading qiembei’s of the British
cabinet, Mr Birrell, speaking in Bristol
Friday evening, "expressed the belief
•that President Taft in his inaugural ad
‘dress pronounced the doom of the nope
'for the disiirniiiiient of nations. There
‘was n universal feeling abroad, in which
‘the United Stales now joined. Mr Bir
‘rell said, for increased armaments. It was