Springfield weekly Republican. [volume], June 02, 1910, Page 2, Image 2

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

Image provided by: Boston Public Library

                
2
ALWAYS THE NATIONAL DUTY.
The flowers of remembrance were
placed on every known grave of a veteran
of the Union army Monday and indeed of
all our armies, so inclusive has become the
observance of Memorial day. In all the
cities and towns of the North, and in many
places of the South as well, the sur
viving comrades gathered for the gra
. cions offices of the day, their minds tilled
with recollections of that stressful period
in the pation's life that to our youth is
history and tradition, when the old sol
diers were young, full of pulsing life and
generous hopes. It was not easy to real
ire all this Monday when the comrades
passed with lagging feet, bent forms, and
eyes out of which the fire has passed.
They were sharers in heroic deeds, and
the lifted hat told of sympathy and re
spect when the men and the colors passed:
Off with your hat ns the flag goes by:
And let the heart have its say:
You’re man enough tor a tear in your eye
That you will not wipe away.
You’re man enough for a thrill that goes
To your very finger tips—
Ay! the lump Just then in your throat that
rose
Spoke more than your parted lips.
Off with your hat as the flag goes by!
Vncover the youngster’s head:
Teach him to bold It holy and high.
For the sake of its sacred dead.
This is our civic festival fullest
. of inspiration because they—the vet
erans—exhibited the best full meas
ure of devotion to country. It is not
ours to fight in the way they were called
upon to do. but just as truly and firmly is
it our privilege to be faithful and devoted
soldiers in the army of a citizenship which
confronts perils and duties as exigent and
important as the years of civil conflict
brought. We, too, must acquit ourselves
like men, or see the national heritage suf
fer detriment at our hands. The flag is as
truly onr symbol of duty as theirs, and we
love and reverence it no less than they
did.
For honesty, for good government, for
the best national ideals, and as foes of all
that corrupts or stains the public service,
we, too, are enlisted. And in the larger
field, with as fine a purpose as ever ani
mated the heroes of old, let America stand ’
for the peace of the world and the broth
erhood of nations, true to the largest light
and the highest courage of this day!
PRESIDENT AND HIS TRAVELS.
It appears from the House debate of
Thursday that President Taft has ex
hausted his traveling fund of $25,000 ap
propriated for the fiscal year to end Jude
30 next. He has meantime arranged to
make a few more tri^ out among the ;
people during June. Early in that month
he will visit points in the central West.
A little later he will move around among
eastern colleges for participation in com
mencement exercises. Accordingly. and
apparently at his suggestion, it was pro- ■
posed in the House to make the $25,000
travel appropriation for the next fiscal I
year available for use also during the re
mainder of this fiscal year. But on a point
of order this proposal of immediate avail
ability was stricken out. The president
must therefore pay the expenses of his
June voyaging out of his regular salary.
.Jo force the president to do any such
thing was characterized as a mean per
forma nee by his supporters in the House
debate. They made the point particularly
that even congressmen who were opposing
the above proposal were besieging the
president to visit this and that place in
their districts for this or that public func
tion, and what could be meaner than then
to deny him the means of making the
visits. This and much more to the same
effect in a debate which became rather
acrimonious before it was over.
It is desirable that the president should
get out among the people occasionally,
and Congress has given generous expres
sion to this policy by making an annual
travel appropriation of $25,000. It is not
desirable that the president should spend
the major part of his time away from
the seat of government, moving about
from place to place for such social or
political purposes as may most appeal to
him. As chief executive his tnain duties
are related to administration and not to
popular expositions of his policies or to
party leadership in the forum or to ex
tending his range of personal acquaintance.
And the duties of administration cannot
well be attended to in traveling around
away from the capital on missions which
are foreign to administrative work and
oversight.
When the president’s salary was in
creased to $75,000. the understanding was
that this should cover his traveling ex
penses. When Congress thereafter creat
ed a special $25,000 traveling fund each
year, it in effect added that much to the
president's regular salary, and this should
be enough. But if the president is, how
ever. to overdraw his travel account year
after year, how long before Congress will
he asked to increase the fund instead of
merely making next year's fund partly
available for this year?
Moreover, may it not fairly he asked
of the president of the United States, in
these times of individual and governmental
extravagance, that he set an example of
some little restraint in expenditure.
Should he not live within his official in
tome when that income is conceded!}- am
ple for all reasonable purposes? When
Congress appropriates a sum of money for
iny particular purpose, the administrative
department in charge is expected to keep
within the appropriation. And when it
ippropriates the very generous sum of
$25,000 a year for the president's use in
travel, it is just as incumbent on the presi
ient to live within the appropriation or to
go beyond it only at his own expense. It
is, of course, no excuse at all to say that
he is constantly besieged by people, even
congressmen, to visit this and that part
of the country. He is being constantly be
sieged to do other unwarrantable things,
but no one has as yet ventured to say
that this is a reason why he should be
enabled to do them.
As for President Taft himself it must
be said that his administration would have
been more successful so far had he trav
eled less and "sat on his job” more ar the
place of business in Washington. Conti
nuity and effectiveness of public policy and
administration are not favored by over
much moving about among shouting
crowds of people; and when to much pub
lic speaking on all sorts of occasions are
added the ineptitudes of speech or senti
ment which are apt to be common even to
cleverer speakers than Mr Taft under such
circumstances, the combination is not fa
vorable either for presidential strength or
I popularity. By all means let the presi
dent move aronnd among the people occa
sionally, that his official vision may be
i kept broad and clear: but let this be made
I occasional and not so constant as to de
tract from its dignity and worth, and
prove of dissipating effect upon the
■ thought and energies of the chief magis
! trate.
FOSS AND HAVENS ON THE TAN.
The tariff speeches lately delivered in
the national House by the two new mem
bers who sit on the democratic side —
Eugene N. Foss of Massachusetts and
James S. Havens of Rochester, N. Y.,—
have finally appeared in the Congres
sional Record. Mr Foss is an old-line
! republican who has come to believe with
his party of former days that the right
kind of tariff is one, as Gen Garfield
said, which leads toward freer and freer
trade. Mr Havens is an old-line demo
crat who believes in a tariff primarily
for revenue.
Reading over these two speeches one
cannot but notice" how closely the two
men, approaching the subject from oppo
site points of the political compass, travel
together in the consideration of present
and practicable tariff reform. Both would
abate existing duties in the interest of
larger trade, particularly with our neigh
bors to the North and South. Neither
evidently—not even the tariff-for-revenue
only old-line democrat—would necessarily
make good any loss of revenue thereby
resulting by bringing parts of the pres
ent free list under taxation. Instead both
favor an income tax in substitution of
reduced customs taxes and as a matter
of justice, and for the purpose, we may
also suppose, of providing an elastic fac
tor in the federal revenue system by
which the government’s income can be re
duced or increased according to its needs
without disturbing the whole business of
the country.
This is what Mr Foss, a man of large
wealth and business interests, said: —
In my judgment, the people of this
country will no longer stand for our pres
"ent forms of taxation which, based upon
consumption, bear altogether too heav
ily upon the masses. They would be bad
enough if they were purely revenue
taxes, by which the government received
what the people paid, instead of such,
as President Taft declared at Seattle, as
“take the money from the people for gov
ernment. but for private interests." We
must have a system of taxation which re
moves these abuses and eliminates this
graft.
The best and the only way out. I be
lieve. is through the income tax. It is
tlje just and common impression that the
wealth of the country is not bearing its
fair share of the taxation which is so
largely for its own protection and benefit.
It is up to the wealthy classes to care
fully consider these things at this time.
The necessity for this change, by which
the income tax will relieve and replace
the excessive tariff taxes, is so obvious
that, it seems to me, we all ought to
favor it.
Equally emphatic in the same view is
Mr Harens, a lawyer who has had large
professional relationship with important
business interests:—
And for the very reason which actuates
me in opposing this federal tax upon the
incomes of corporations. I am in favor
of giving the federal government power
to lew n just income tax. (Applause on
the democratic side.) The burden of such
a tax falls where the burden of any tax
should fall, upon those best able to bear
it (applause on the democratic side), and
the burden is in proportion to the ben
efits received from the government. (Ap
plause.l There is no good reason why.
if the state which I have the honor in
part to represent here for a short time,
by reason of its wealth, its resources, and
its large business interests, receives a
large share of the benefits of the govern
ment. it should not pay a proportionate
share of the taxes of the government.
The proposition seems to need no argu
ment. and apparently it is favored, as it
ought to be favored, by both political
parties.
With the old-line democrat on this
proposition stand the radical democrats,
and with the old-line republican stand
not only the insurgent republicans but
many who are not so classed: while for
ratification of the pending income tax
amendment without commitment as to
legislation under it are to be found Pres
ident Taft, Senator Root, and others. The
opposition to this amendment is narrow
ly confined, and is inspired largely by a
crowd of wealthy men, bent upon dodging
as long as possible their just tax obli
gations to the national government. This
opposition must not be allowed to pre
vail. The amendment should be ratified,
and ratified in exactly the form in Which
it has been submitted to the states.
PROPOSED STATE INCOME TAX.
Shall we have a general state income
tax? This question has been suddenly
raised in the Legislature by the favorable
reception given by the lower branch to a
bill apparently fathered by Dean of
Wakefield, a democrat, providing for the
taxation of incomes no matter from what
ever source they may be derived. The bill
has been passed to a third reading by a
close vote, and will come up for amend
ment and further discussion this week.
As no copy of the measure is at hand its
details as to exemptions, etc., cannot be
given. But its general purpose evidently
is to add to the present system of taxa
tion an unprogressive tax ou individual
incomes.
The present law provides that personal
estate for the purpose of taxation shall
include :—
—the excess above S2OOO of the income
from a profession, trade or employment
accruing to the person to be taxed during
the year ending on the first day of May of
the year in which the tax is assessed. In
comes derived from property subject to
taxation shall not be taxed.
That is to say. the present state income
tax falls on incomes derived from profes
sional and personal services only, and is
levied on the excess above S2OOO. It is
not generally assessed even in this limited
field. Public officials whose salaries are
over S2OOO and are a matter of public
record cannot escape, but other aalai-ied
persons more often escape than not.
The .matter of a general state income
tax was fully discussed by the Dunhar
commission of 1897. The chief objection
urged was that certainty of assessment by
a government depended largely on its abil
ity to reach the sources nt income—the
major part of the British income tax. for
example, being collected at the source and
not from individuals directly of on their
representations. And a state government
could not reach more than a fraction of
the sources of incomes nt its citizens,
which in large part lie heyond the state
boundaries. Accordingly the Dunbar com
mission proposed a tax on house rentals
THE SPRINGFIELD WEEKLY REPUBLICAN: THURSDAY. JUNE 2, 1910.
as a rough measure of the income of citi
zens. Rentals of S4OO or less a year were
exempt; the excess above S4OO was to be
taxed 10 per cent a year. It was conceded
that many persons justly taxable would
escape this levy—wealthy individuals liv
ing alone in a room or small apartment,
and miserly rich families living in small
and broken old homsteads. Rut it vas
thought this could not be helped, and that
on the whole a tax on excess rentals
would reach most of those which a tax
on excessive incomes aimed to reach, and
would do this with greater certainty and
much greater ease.
But the Dunbar commission never
thought of adding a rental or income tax
to the existing system without a radical
modification of the latter. It was engaged
in reforming the present system and not
in providing large additional revenue for
large additional state and local expendi
ture. It accordingly presented a rental in
come tax as a substitute for the present
and most impracticable and inequitable
taxes on intangible personal property. If
the general income tax bill now before the
Legislature were similarly put forward in
connection with a bill abolishing the taxes
on the paper representatives of property,
it might he worth considering—though it
can never be possible for the state to tax
incomes as certainly as can the general
government. The objection chiefly urged in
the House debate of Thursday, that in
comes from taxable real property should
be exempt, is without any weight. The
taxes on realty are taxes on the whole
community and not alone on the owners
of the same: and the income of the in
dividual owner of taxed realty is accord
ingly no more entitled to exemption than
any other income, as for example, that
from personal property or personal serv
ice. If the pending bill were presented in
connection with a repeal of the personal
property taxes, it would offer with more or
less amendment a measure of great possi
bilities for fundamental and desirable tax
reform.
GREAT FLIGHT BY MR CURTISS.
While we should no longer cry “mar
‘velous.” perhaps, when a fresh sensation
in aviation takes place, there is no doubt
that Glenn H. Curtiss’s aeroplane flight
from Albany to New York city Sunday
forenoon was a memorable performance.
Übe feat could have been accomplished
last year, by either Wilbur Wright or Mr
Curtiss, as well as this year; indeed there
were high hopes that sneh an achieve
ment would distinguish the Fulton-Hud
son celebration.
Meanwhile. Paulhan's great overland
flight from London to Manchester, which
are about 50 miles farther apart than New
York and Albany, had somewhat impaired
the prestige to be won by the aviator who
should carry off the SIO,OOO prize offered
by the New York World for a successful
manflight down the Hudson river to tide
water. But, in certain respects the
Curtiss performance is the greatest on
record. With one stop of an hour at
Poughkeepsie, the aviator made the trip
in elapsed time of three hours, 32 minutes,
or in actual flying time of two hours, 32
minutes. The average of speed in the
air, therefore, which was 54.06 miles an
hour, stands as the fastest ever made in
an aerial Journey , of such length.
It is difficult for most of us to realize
how fast these machines are. Curtiss
traveled, it will be noted, nearly a mile
a minute. Then, too, while the weather
was most propitious, the aviator displayed
rare skill at several points on his thrilling
journey and proved no doubt that these
air craft, when piloted by skilled pilots,
are as safe as automobiles on a country
road. The news story of the event makes
very interesting reading. It is to be
hoped that the present season will be
marked by more of these great flights, and
Certainly the beginning is auspicious.
FORTIFYING THE CANAL.
The fortification of the Panama canal
presents a question of military expediency
that divides even military experts, and,
so long as they cannot agree, why should
the large expenditure necessary for forts
and batteries be made? We are aware of
the fact that the board of army and navy
officers which visited the isthmus not long
ago has recommended that $14,000,000 be
expended upon fortifications, but another
board differently composed might present
a contrary report. In any event, when
these officers feel resting upon themselves
the burden of responsibility for the de
fense of the nation's ports or foreign pos
sessions, they are naturally disposed to ad
vise military preparations so complete that
nothing can be left to chance. They are
averse to having possible future disasters
in war traced back to themselves, and this
renders them very cautious, in recommend
ing a state of preparedness that might
some time prove in the least inadequate.
Unofficially, among army and navy offi
cers, there has persisted a marked differ
ence of opinion regarding a strong system
of fortifications at the canal zone. Those
who argue against them hold that the
sufficient defense of the water way is the
navy. If the fleet commands the ap
proaches, no hostile movement worth seri
ous consideration can be made against it.
With the navy strong enough to meet
such a demand upon it, fortifications would
He a superfluous inner ring of defense and
a waste of the money used in constructing
them. At the same time, it should be
pointed out that any enemy formidable
enough in war to overcome our fleet could
undoubtedly reduce the fortified works,
especially through land operations against
them front the rear. Lt any event, the
canal would be utterly useless to the
United States navy and merchant marine
during hostilities from the moment that
the naval command of its approaches in
either ocean passed to the enemy's fleef.
To be of the slightest value to this coun
try, in the absence of international
neutralization, the canal's approaches
must be kept open to American shipping.
Naval control is the primary factor, the
sine qua non, of the canal situation in
time of war. •
The argument of Capt H. 8. Knapp of
the navy in favor of fortifications is to
this effect: "Not to have permanent fortifl
‘entions at the canal will operate to tie rhe
‘navy to the canal region’in war, and that
‘will mean partial paralysis. The navy
‘must be free to go where it can do the
'most good, and without any drag upon its
■freedom of action due to a knowledge
‘that in going it may have to leave open
'vital interests depending upon it alone,”
One may well hesitate to take issue with
Capt Knapp, but it is difficult to under
stand how the American navy can ever be
operated, after the piercing of the isthmus,
as it has been possible to operate it before
that momentous event. The water way
will inevitably revolutionize naval condi
tions in the western hemisphere. If our
navy is to dominate the canal’s approaches,
it must always be “tied” to it, in some
sense. It certainly cannot ignore the
canal’s existence, if the water way is to be
of value to American commerce and to
the military defense of the conntry. Wher
ever the fleet may go, therefore, in search
of an enemy on the high seas, the defense
of the canal must form one of the main
problems of its operations. Just what
Capt Knapp means is not clear when he
says that “the navy must be free to go
‘where it can do the most good and with
‘out any drag upon its freedom of action.”
In order to create freedom of action to
that extent, it would seem necessary to
close the canal entirely and put it hope
lessly out of business—in short, revert to
the conditions existing before it was dug.
It has certainly been one of the chief
arguments of big navy advocates the past
10 years that the canal’s protection would
make imperative a large fleet. Whenever
the cry arose for more battleships, the de
fense of the isthmus has been urged as a
vital necessity. Well, the battleships have
been built and more are coming. Yet
Capt Knapp now sees uses for them other
than defending the canal. There must be
a costly chain of land batteries and forts,
says he, sb that the fleet may be “free.”
And Mr Taft seems to think so, too. The
truth is that the canal itself should be
neutralized and dedicated to peace. If we
must ever fight for its use. after building
it at such enormous expense, the mere
fortifying of it on land will be of little
avail.
SHORT WEIGHT.
It is a shabby side of life that is get
ting itself into the papers just now—a
great and wealthy trust revealed as cheat
ing the government out of millions by
cheating of the most vulgar and bare
faced sort, many wholesale dealers de
tected in selling short-weight packages,
the rainy-day club of New York finding
false scales in all grades of retail shops
visited in their crusade. Shall the na
tional motto on the dollar be changed
from “In God we trust” to “Caveat
‘emptor”? There is no reason to be pes
simistic over these revelations, however;
cheating is no new thing, and the stand
ard of honesty on the whole rises rather
than falls. Public sentiment has never
been sounder on the subject; the offense
is not. like some others, publicly con
demned and privately condoned. It is
held for a mean and contemptible thing,
whether practiced by a sugar trust or by,
a street vender. Most of those who are
guilty of it are heartily ashamed of it
and try to pretend to themselves that it
is necessary because every one else does
the same thing. If that were true the
bottom would be dropping out of our civ
ilization. Of course it is not true. There
are, to be sure, men otherwise well dis
posed. good citizens, who would not steal
yotir hat or your umbrella, who Secretly
will swindle you s ’out- of your money to
the value of many ha<ts and umbrellas, by
selling 15 ounces fwt'a pound. But do
they like it? ’They do not. They are
purchasers, every one of them, as well as
sellers, and they regard dishonest dealing
as mean, contemptible and degrading.
They try to persuade themselves that
it is necessary, but they know in their
hearts that there are plenty of men whose
dealings are as straight as a stretched
string, who would’ rather skimp a trifle
and dispense with an automobile than
adulterate their wares or tamper with the
scales. And these are the men to whom
society owes its support. If a boycott
of the Social ostracism proposed by Presi
dent Hadley is ever justifiable, it is in
the case of dealers known to be amassing
wealth by shabby practices which the law
cannot effectively reach. It would not
take a great deal of such treatment to
bring about a notable moral uplift, and
many a sumptuous house meanly got
would be no better than a pillory. It is
a worthy crusade which the rainy-day
chib hns undertaken, and not to be dis
missed with ridicule. But better yet
would be a comprehensive and permanent
movement to teach customers to protect
themselves with Care and vigor. It is
part of the prodigal, easy-going American
spirit to take everything on trust, and
not trouble over petty swindles. It saves
time and worry, but it is unmoral for all
that. Women are always being lectured
about tempting some worthless wretch to
snatch a purse or a bangle—why are they
never warned not to tempt their excellent
grocer (pillar of his church with a soul
worth saving) to build his new house with
other people’s money? Proper training
in housewifery and a vigilant practice of
it would keep many a good man in the
straight and narrow way that can be
found in the heart of the crooked dollar
mark—perfect symbol and perpetual re
minder.
So far as face-to-face retail trade goes
the world has not gone backward; on the
whole it advances steadily in ideals and
practice. At the same time it must be
noted that the new tendency toward busi
ness consolidations, which keep buyer and
seller from coming face to face, and make
of the seller in many cases a mere cor
poration, tends to weaken the pressure for
square dealing as between man and man.
The customer is no longer Neighbor
Brown, bid'the public, an abstraction as
impersonal as the government, which even
an ex-governor is not ashamed to cheat.
Just here lies the peril of the prepared
package, a modern commercial device
which has many admirable traits, but
which is altogether too well adapted to
be the tool of unscrupulous deniers in de
frauding a careless and good-natured pub
lic. The merits of the prepared packet
are obvious. In the case of food it makes
for cleanliness as compared with the old
way of selling in bulk. It lightens the
work of the retail dealer, makes a neat
and attractive shop, and facilitates buy
ing. Also, it adds greatly to the value
of advertising, which does comparatively
little for articles sold in bulk. The fa
miliar package is in itself in the nature
of an advertisement, and. for advertising
purposes there is often nothing more ef
fective than a picture of the package it
self, whether bottle, jar, tin box or paste
board cartel. The public relishes ths
convenience of . dispensing with selection,
bargaining and weighing. Oue throws
down a dime or a quarter, picks up the
package, and the larder is replenished
with breakfast food or biscuits or bacon
or soup or plum pudding, as the case
may be. Of course every one knows that
the nent packages have to be paid for,
and that the consumer in the end has to
bear the cost of lavish advertising, but
the convenience of having thoroughly ad
vertised goods available at any store in
attractive standardized packets is looked
upon as a sufficient compensation. The
standardized package is probably one of
the features of the present order which
would be preserved in the most Utopian
of socialistic states.
On the other hand, the system is attend
ed with some rather serious dangers.
Ages ago, but after long struggles toward
civilized dealings, society fixed standard
weights and measures, and imposed severe
penalties on merchants who used false
scales or yardsticks. The state still jeal
ously guards the weights and measures,
and has officials who see to it that coal or
sugar comes in full weight, and that a peck
is a full peck, a- pint a full pint. But the
effect of the package system is to take the
goods thus sold out of the field of the
legally established weights and measures,
and substitute an arbitrary standard fixed
by the seller. What the consumer can be
reasonably sure of is that he will fare like
everybody else, that all the packages bear
ing the same brand will be substantially
alike. Nor is this a small advantage as
compared with a retail system under which
a dishonest dealer can give short weight
to anyone who is seen to be careless and
unobservant, while treating fairly custom
ers who might make trouble. To this ex
tent" the standard package may fairly be
counted a force for honest trade.
But the theory that the dealer may put
as much or as little as he pleases, in a
pound package, provided the whole pack
age weighs a pound is untenable, and will
have to be stamped out for once and all.
It was rejected by English law some years
ago in the case of a great tea dealer ac
cused of selling short-weight packages. It
has come up as an issue in the United
States lately in various quarters. In
Brooklyn lately this defense was urged by
a butter dealer whose two-pound packages
were two or more ounces short. In an in
terview he said:—
Now, please remember that the prin
ciple of our butter business is this: From
the churn to the table the butter is never
for a moment exposed. Now, under those
circumstances how the dickens can you
weigh the butter without weighing its
envelope? Our butter is put in cartons of
heavy pasteboard, all paraffined. They cost
S9OO a car-load, and we are certainly not
going to give them away. No, the pack
ages are not labeled two pounds. They are
merely known as two-pound packages. We
make no claim that they weigh a full two
pounds.
A good man, very likely a church member,
but not very bright. He ought to apply
to some Scientific school for a method of
weighing butter in its envelope. And that
crawl at the end is rather pitiful—“we
‘make no claim”! They are not two-pound
packages, dear no! That is merely the
name of them. On the other side it is
pleasing to note that the New York retail
grocers’ association has lately passed this
resolution: “We will not weigh or sell
’wooden dishes for butter, net weight being
‘our tnottfS.” J' : ,f„. ~.
That must become not merely a motto,
but the universal practice, enforced, if
need be ( by laws, It is not for nothing
that society has by a long and painful
process achieved standard units for stand
ard commodities. It cannot afford to dis
card the pound and the ounce, definite
quantities verifiable on any scales, for a
vague quid est called a “package” which
the dealer makes heavier or lighter, at will,
by the simple process of regulating the
weight of the wood and cardboard used.
It is notorious that in times of rising prices
there is a special tendency to adulterate
and give short measure in order either to
eke out the cheaply bought stock on hand
Or to avoid in some degree the unpopular
expedient of sharply raising the price to
the ultimate consumer. The unregulated
packet is altogether too handy a device to
keep the public from knowing how much
it is getting for its money. And it is
quite as well, too, that the public should
learn that fancy packages cost money. The
very human desire to get something for
nothing, specially strong in America, does
not deserve to be pampered by a system
of short weights. The standard pound is
a precious thing, representing a step up
from barbarism to civilization; it is not to
be tampered with lightly.
A REMARKABLE TROLLY TRIP.
Twenty-orie business men of Utica, N.
Y., bent on the study of municipal condi
tions, with a view to gathering points to
be made of home advantage, have just
returned from a novel outing—perhaps the
first of its kind In the elaboration there
of. The journey was made in a special
trolly car. well fitted up for the comfort
of its occupants, and in the journey about
2000 miles were covered, the trip extend
ing through New York. Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Indiana. Kentucky and Michigan,
the party reaching Louisville on the South
nnd Detroit on the North.
The general passenger agent of the
Utica and Mohawk Valley and Oneida
railway worked for four months in ad
vance of the departure of ths party in
making the arrangements for the trip by
correspondence nnd engaging to have pilots
meet the travelers at the beginning of
each new division of road. This meant
that nt every important place along the
way the coming of the Uticans had been
heralded and lending citizens of the
places visited extended generous hospital
ity. One of the Utica landlords went
along, so that all the hotel accommoda
tions were carefully provided for, leaving
the travelers free to enjoy themselves and
absorb knowledge and other things. The
general manager of the Utica trolly road
was also of the party, and his knowledge
of the divisions of the different railway
systems over which the party traveled
made everything go like clockwork. The
secretary of the Utica chamber of com
merce had sent letters ahead to all the
business organizations of the cities vis
ited. and that was a great help. In fact,
from start to finish, this remarkable trol
ly Journey wns made a success by means
of all this forethought.
■ A great variety of business interests
were represented by the 21 travelers, and
ench sought to learn things that would
advantage his specialty as well as the
city, When the party returned to Utica
last week they were greeted with a
brass baud, decorated homes and business
places, an automobile escort nearly a mile
long, and finally they were cordially
feasted at a public banquet. The Utica
Press proudly sums up this suggestive ad
venture, as follows: —
The tour was a remarkable success.
Being the first of its kind, it had the
element of novelty and attracted an as
tonighing degree of attention. Through
six states the Uticans were everywhere
received with notable manifestations of
cordiality and hospitality. They met with
no accidents of any kind.. Not one in .the
party was nt any time ill and the itine
rarv was rigidlv followed from start to
finish. The* did everything the} planned
to* do and they got home on lime. hand
somely vindicating the reliability of the
trolly service of the present day. there
will doubtless be other long-distance trol
ly trips, but to Utica nnd Uticans will
remain the distinction of having made t.ie
first one covering 2000 miles.
After the members of the Springfield
board of trade have rounded up the series
of local journeys upon which they have
embarked, perhaps it will be deemed de
sirable to plan a more extensive trolly
tour by special car after the example of
these Utica folks. There is no reason in
the world why such journeyings should
not become as popular as they must be
profitable. Thereby there is much to
learn as to what other cities are doing
along the lines of municipal benefit and
business progress. Such scouting is also
the enemy Of provincialism, which often
means too great satisfaction with tilings
as they are in the local environment.
MR QUEZON REMINDS US.
A recent issue of the Congressional Rec
ord is more than ordinarily notable be
cause it contains the speech on Philippine
affairs by Manuel L. Quezon, one of the
resident commissioners at Washington
from the Philippine islands. Mr Quezon
represents the Filipino people as no one
else does at this particular time. He was
elected to represent them, and his voice
is their voice. If a demonstration of this
fact is required, it may be found in the
cablegram which Mr Quezon received af
ter delivering his speech from Speaker
Osmena of the National Assembly at Ma
nila, the only body in the archipelago
chosen by the people, and representative
of their will and aspirations. Speaker Os
mena’s cablegram ought to be read. Here
it ia:—
Quezon, Washington :—
I received With great satisfaction your
cablegram, notifying me, as speaker of the
House, of your having fulfilled the duty
imposed upon you by the Assembly to
express to the American people the aspira
tions of the Filipinos for immediate inde
pendence. . . . Our desire for inde
pendence remains unalterable. The sol
emn declaration for independence made by
the Assembly was not the expression of a
new aspiration, but the reiteration of the
people’s desire, consecrated by gigantic
sacrifices. The mandate of the Assembly
urging you to present the plea for inde
pendence to the United States Congress
was in compliance with the command of
the people. They crave that by all pos
sible means within the province of the law
you advance our national cause, which is
the cause of the American people and of
humanity. We trust that the justice of
the American people will decide this peti
tion in favor of Filipino freedom. Ten
years of American administration show
that the Filipinos are capable of maintain
ing an independent government.
Ten years of American administration
also show that the Filipinos are as eager
as ever to set up for themselves. The
Quezon address, being an authoritative ex
pression, of Filipino desires, 5s moderate
and highly courteous in tone. It is distin
guished by a frank and admirable recog
nition Of all the benefits resulting from
American rule aS well as by an unsparing
exposure of the weaknesses of the insular
government. The statement concerning
the benefits The Republican is Very glad
to reprint:—
It is but just to say that the commis
sion, by its doings and accomplishments,
han ■contributed its share to the common
cause of human progress and civilization.
Honor and glory to its members and to
their country!
The names of these commissioners, more
particularly those of Taft and Smith, are
permanently graved in the minds and
hearts of the Filipinos by the chisel of
gratitude.
They have established provincial and
municipal governments, almost completely
autonomous, supervised only by a very
efficient executive bureau, at the bead of
which is a very able and hard-working
man, Mr Carpenter.
They have created a body of constabu
lary. whose duty is to co-Operate with the
municipal and provincial officials in the
maintenance of publie order. The chiefs
of this body—Gen Bandholtz, Col Harbord
and the others-are very brilliant men,
carefully Selected from the officers of the
regular army. By their tact and their love
for the islanders they have converted the
organization, once really unpopular, into
one of the most useful and praised of the
official organizations.
They have built up a system of educa
tion which offers equal opportunities for
learning to the poor and to the rich.
They have given us a sHpreme court
worthy to be compared to any Other tri
bunal in the world. The chief justice,
Hon Cayetano Arellano, is a man of wide
learning and with a reputation in his pro
fession extending far beyond the confines
of the island.
They have secured for us an Assembly
which although it has very limited power,
answers, at least, to the purpose of ex
pressing the will of the people and show
ing its governing capacity, Ostnena and
his colleagues of the first and second As
sembly have made living proof of my
countrymen's fitness for self-government.
They have beautified the city of Manila,
the capital of the archipelago, improved
its sanitary conditions, completed its har
bor works, and provided It with a trolly
system.
They have constructed all over the isl
ands more than 500 miles of highways and
roads, hundreds of steel and concrete
bridges, and thousands of concrete cul
verts.
They have multiplied the number of
lighthouses nnd knitted the islands with
Unes of telegraphs and telephones.
They have provided a great number of
towns with artesian wells, and built school
houses even in almost inaccessible parts of
the archipelago.
Of course. Mr Chairman, it is a fact
that the Filipino people have paid for all
these things from the revenues of the
Islands; hut none the leas It is true that the
insular government should have the main
credit for it.
All this we acknowledge; for all this we
are thankful; for all this wo are grateful
to your government and to vour people
But. sir. despite it all. the Filipinos are
not. as yet, a happy people.
The criticism offered by Mr Quezon is
in perfect good temper. First of all, ob
jection la made to the character of the
present insular government because it is
confessedly "temporary.” What is to be
the character of the permanent govern
ment? “We know not to what we must
'look forward,” says Mr Quezon. Con
gress remains' noncommittal, nnd “this un
‘defined policy Is the natural source of
‘unrest througitout the nrchlLlago, both
‘on the part << the FlHpinoAnd Amcri
'cans, ns well as of forelgn^^fcwj do
'not h^itnfe (■ Illium tha^^HfeX .Ie
mmi.m m the
hns any interest therein, anxiously
‘wishes to see something definite done by
‘Congress.” Again, the present govern
ment of the islands is not truly representa
tive, The national Assembly has no real
power, since an upper chamber composed
of a few men appointed by the president
of the United States has the power of
rejecting all of the Assembly's bills and
resolutions. Only one court in the archi
pelago. the supreme court, is independent
of tiie executive power, for all of the
judges of the lower courts hold office dur
ing the “pleasure” of the Philippine com
mission. The central government is as
much of an exterior despotism as that of
Egypt.
Having referred to the extreme poverty
of the Filipinos. Mr Quezon qqndemns ths
government for its failure to ameliorate
economic conditions. The depression in
agriculture “is due mainly, if not entirely,
‘to the lack of work animals, which is the
‘effect of the rinderpest. The government,
‘instead of concentrating from the very
■beginning its efforts toward stamping out
‘this disease, has done very little in con
‘nection with this, the most vital sub
ject touching the welfare of the country.
‘The bureau of 'agriculture, which ought
‘to be the most important bureau after
‘that of education, is in reality the least
‘cared for. No successful effort has been
‘made to get the best-fitted man at the
‘head of the bureau, nor have sufficient
‘appropriations been granted to carry on
‘an efficient campaign against this de
‘structive disease. Consequently the bu
‘reau has so far been a complete failure.
‘Our work animals still die daily, and our
’lands remain uncultivated.” When we
consider what an important and expensive
role the department of agriculture now
plays in this country, the criticism of the
neglect of Philippine agriculture compels
attention.
It is, however, still an expensive gov
ernment which America gives to the Phil
ippines. An excessive burden of taxation
is placed upon the people. “Comparing
‘the Philippines with the other countries
‘which came into your hands after the
‘Spanish war. we see that Cuba, with a
‘population of about 2,000,000. has a for
‘eign trade of almost $200,000,000; Porto
‘Rico, with a population of about 1,000,-
‘OOO, has $57,000,000, while the Philip
‘pines, with a population of 8,000,000, has
‘only $59,000,000. That is to say, Cuba
‘has SIOO trade per capita; Porto Rico,
‘ss6; and the Philippines, $7. So that
‘the Cuban with his per capita tax of
‘513.33, and his trade of SIOO, and the
‘Porto Rican with his per capita tax of
‘53.70, and his trade of $56, compared with
‘the Filipino, whose per capita tax is
‘52.50 and whose trade is $7, are scarcely
‘taxed at all.” Mr Quezon, it appears,
would curtail the administrative work of
the Philippine government, which is now
“out of all keeping with the real needs
‘of the country. There are bureaus, main
‘tained at a large expense, engaged in
‘purely scientific work, important perhaps
‘in itself, but of no immediate benefit to
‘the Filipinos. In addition, there are bu
reaus, the public land, for instance, that
‘could be annexed to others Without the
‘slightest harm to the service.”
The. speech ends with a petition to Con
gress signed by Mr Quezon. We will
quote merely the first paragraph:—
The undersigned, resident commissioner
of the Philippine islands, in the United
States, in pursuance of instructions from
the Philippine Assembly, has the honor
hereby to address the Congress of the
United States on behalf of the Filipino
people, to the end that Congress may
grant complete and absolute independence
to all the territory known as the Philip
pine archipelago, nnd rqquest the presi
dent of the United States to open nego
tiations with Japan. China. England, Ger
many. Russia and France for the neutral
ization of said archipelago.
The peculiarity of movements such as
Ac one that the resident commissioner
represents is that they never seem to sub
side and die out. The desire for inde
pendence seems as strong in the Philip
pines as it was 10 years ago. It must be
reckoned with in the future. In the end it
will doubtless triumph.
PRESBYTERIANS AND THE FIGHT.
In its anti-prizefight resolutions, the
Presbyterian general assembly began with
the statement that “our brethren of the
‘ministry and the churches of California are
‘losing in their marked earnest endeavors to
‘prevent as a great reproach to their state,
‘the holding of a shameful exhibition.”
The basis of this announcement was doubt
less the decision of the district attorney
of San Francisco, in answer to the church
federation whose efforts to prevent the en
counter between Jeffries and Johnson have
been so persistent.
Mr Fickert points out that, haring read
the articles of agreement between the bel
ligerents, he finds nothing that indicates
a violation of the statute, and he con
tinues: "It is impossible for me to prede
termine whether there Will be a violation
‘of the statute. If during the fight the
‘principals or their representatives violate
‘the law they will be punished. As has
‘been stated by the courts, both in thia
‘country and in England, it is a question
‘for a jury to determine whether such a
‘contest is a sparring match or a prize
•fight.”
This is, of course, the narrow legal view
of a law officer who does not wish to inter
fere. When the contest is over, the thou
sands of spectators will be in no doubt
as to what they have seen. They will
not buy tickets, in the first place, to see
a mere "professional sparring match;”
they expect to see a real fight. And, sure
ly, the man who loses the battle will
think he has been in a fight. If Mr Jef
fries or Mr Johnson fails to "come to time”
when the bell rings for the next round,
the reason will be the distinguished gentle
man's utter inability to stand up again
and be hammered. Why should people
travel across the continent to see this en
counter of heavyweights unless It was to
be ‘‘fought to a finish”? The district at
torney of San Francisco is very amusing
in his ignorance of what the encounter be
tween Messrs Jeffries and Johnson is to
be. To be sure they will wear gloves; but
gloves have never spoiled prize fighting.
Although prize fighting has soiled gloves.
The Presbyterian general assembly di
rects its protest straight at the governor
of California and is to be warmly com
mended for its action. Other religions
bodies should follow its example. A pro
test is worth while. It is only by demon
strations of public sentiment that public
officials in these cases ars forced into ac
tivity. There ars many states in this
Union where no one would venture to ar
range for such an event as San Francisco