Springfield weekly Republican. [volume], March 05, 1914, Page 2, Image 2

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

Image provided by: Boston Public Library

                
2
REPUBLICANS AND MEXICO.
From now on it is the purpose of the
House republicans to comment on de
velopments in the Mexican situation, thus
departing from the policy of silence
adopted at the instance of the administra
tion.—New York Sun Washington dis
patch.
The democrats were the opposition par
ty in the days before the Spanish war.
Those were critical days. The yellow
newspapers had begun to “play up” in
their headlines any incident of the Weyler
regime, whether true or false, that would
inflame public sentiment in this country
and strengthen the popular demand for
intervention in Cuba. Then came the
blowing up of the Maine.
Democrats in Congress cut loose very
early in attacking the Cuban policy of
the McKinley administration. They could
sec in it nothing but vacillation and cow
ardice. Feeling irresponsible themselves,
they were glad to nag and torment the
republican administration into war with
a European power. And curiously reminis
cent of that period is the speech by Mr
Mondell of. Wyoming in the House of
Representatives on Friday. The jingo
democrats of the spring of 1898 de
clared they did not want war. Air
Mondell says he does not want war. But
like the democrats of that earlier time,
when the destruction of the Maine had
rendered the -Cuban situation enormously
more difficult, Mr Mondell gets busy the
moment things begin' to look desperate for
President Wilson.
It is a great pleasure to say that the
republicans as a whole in Congress have
thus far acted with much restraint and
discretion regarding the Mexican situa
tion. High praise should be given to the
republicans in the Senate who serve on
the foreign relations committee for their
conservatism and forbearance in this
crisis. Men like Messrs Root of New
York and Lodge of Massachusetts hare
showed clearly that they place country
above party. Nor should we fail to men
tion ex-President Taft’s fine expression
of moral support for his successor in bis
address Friday evening at Washington,
when he declared against military in
tervention. Gratefully acknowledging all
this, one may frankly call attention to the
probable results of a radical change from
this policy on the part of any large num
ber of republicans in a position to harass
the present administration in its conduct
of affairs.
If there are enough Mondells, they may
easily force intervention upon the gov
ernment. But what would probably hap
pen, from the political or party point
of view? Let republicans remember the
political developments of the Spanish
war period. The moment the sword flies
from its scabbard, which party derives
the more political advantage, the party
in power or the party in opposition? The
truth is that the administration always
has the whip hand in appealing to the
patriotism of a people at war. The jingo
democrats in 1898 were left trailing after
McKinley, and a sorry procession of
snarling patriots they made as the presi
dent they had sought to put into a hole
ran off with all the glory. President
Wilson is altogether too shrewd and sub
tle a statesman, he - knows the-game too
well, to let himself be dished by teasing
party opponents if war is finally forced
upon him.
"There will be no Cubanizing of Mex
■ico,” shouted a democratic congressman
from. Texas in Friday’s House debate, if
military intervention comes. “Mexico is
•contiguous territory,” he warned Mon
dell. In 1846-1848 the democratic ad
ministration of the time conquered Mexi
co and despoiled her of immense terri
tories in order to strengthen slavery in
this country, but the whig party, which
righteously denounced the performance,
went to pieces within five years instead
of gaining strength and power. No one
ran tell what selfish forces, what passions
a war of intervention in Mexico would
now set loose in this country, but of one
thing the republicans of to-day may
be sure—a policy of criticism ■'“signed
to nag the administration into war would
be the most stupid imaginable, in its re
moter results.
HUERTA AND THE TWO WILSONS.
During the troublous times which ex
isted while I was embassador to Mexico,
all of m.v colleagues. I think without ex
ception. believed that intervention by the
government of the United States was the
only practical remedy for the prevalent
revolutionary disorders, and some of them
were inclined to be impatient, with me be
cause of my refusal to accept their views.
Henry Lane Wilson in the Independent.
November 13. 1913.
Former Embassador Wilson left Mexico
last July, after several months of futile
urging and argument in favor of the full
recognition of Gen Huerta as president of
Mexico. It ia of some interest now to remem
ber that throughout his embassadorship,
which began before the downfall of Pres
ident Diaz, all of the other ministers and
embassadors believed that intervention by
the United States was the only remedy.
The diplomata seem to have reached that
conclusion very early—before President
Madero's downfall, in fact. We refer to
the statement by Mr Wilson in his Inde
pendent article, at this time, because it
seems to afford us an explanation of the
embassador’s own conduct in Mexico City
in assisting in the final ruin of the Ma
dero regime. The embassador was evi
dently moved by a keen desire to prevent
intervention—military intervention—such
as the European diplomatists regarded as
necessary. Nothing is more curious in the
history of our relations with Mexico the
past three years than the way in which
the sincerest efforts to avoid intervention
appear to have made matters worse.
People who insist with increasing clamor
to-day that Huerta should have been rec
ognized utterly regardless of the means
by which Huerta obtained power—and
that is their position—must be ignorant
of the facts which have gradually been
developed concerning the tragedy in the
Mexican capital a year ago. .Nothing of
ficial from our government has ever been
made public on this point, but it soeme
timely to say that statements regarding
bis own role, made by the former em
bassador. in his frequent speeches since
last summer, demonstrate with a fair de
gree of conclusiveness that recognition
of Huerta was impossible for a govern
ment pretending to bp as civilized as our
own.
It was not simply a question of ap
plying "Anglo-Saxon standards” to a coun-
I try like Mexico, in the case of Huerta; it
was also a question of winking at what
• our own embassador had done and at
i what he had made the government of the
United states responsible for. Madero
was the president of Mexico in every
possible sense when Felix Diaz, in Febru
ary. 1913. started the revolt at the arsenal
in the Mexican capital. The plain truth
' appears to be that in order to stop the
' street fighting and, thus make foreign res
’ idents secure and prevent the interven
j tion he feared, the American embassador.
■ uninstructed by his home government, en
! tered into a conspiracy with Felix Diaz
i and Huerta for the overthrow of President
i Madero, the man recognized by the United
States as the constitutional head of the
country. The conspiracy's success in
volved the betrayal of his own government
and president by Gen Huerta, a military
subordinate. At Spokane. Wash., on Oc
tober 18 Henry Lane Wilson delivered a
speech:—
Regarding the part he took in bringing
about the making of Huerta provisional
president. Mr Wilson said that Huerta
and Diaz factions were in the capital
ready to renew the bombardment and
that "while I was not so instructed I took
immediate action to prevent it. No act
of mine rendered such valuable services
to Americans and foreigners in my entire
career, and yet the administration at
Washington called my act an intrusion
into the politics of the country.",
I In Washington. D. C.. on November 23.
he delivered an attack on the present ad
ministration. and. according to a report
by the New York Sun:—
Mr Wilson gave a thrilling account
of the events during the bombardment
in Mexico City, terminated through his
efforts in bringing Gen Huerta and Gen
Diaz together in the American embassy
and the signing of an agreement for peace.
This successful endeavor to put a stop
to the bloodshed and destruction in the
battered capital. Mr Wilson declared, he
could not but regard as the crowning ef
fort of his career, as an act in behalf of
humanity and civilization.
The developments of the past year have
revealed Felix Diaz in no heroic light and
he does not appear to-day to be in the
least a strong man. It now seems evi
dent. after a year of observation, that
Felix Diaz could have been dislodged and
crushed in Mexico City a year ago if Gens
Huerta and Blanquet had not been trai
tors to the Madero government at the most
critical moment. It was the American
embassador who promoted with his influ
ence the conspiracy which involved the
betrayal of Madero by his generals and
the downfall of a government with which
the United States maintained friendly re
lations ; and even in the American embassy
itself were Diaz and Huerta brought to
gether for an agreement which meant the
destruction of the constitutional govern
ment of the country and. as events proved,
the assassinations of Gustavo Madero and
the president and vice-president of the Mex
ican republic. Embassador Wilson was so
deeply involved, it appears, in the reorgan
ization of the Mexican government through
these abhorrent methods that, as soon as
Huerta obtained power he began his ur
gent appeals to Washington for formal
recognition of the new regime. Mr Taft
was president for three weeks thereafter,
yet he did not venture to satisfy his
embassador in Mexico.
It. would have been impossible for any
American administration to grant to Gen
Huerta the recognition he desired without
exposing itself to the most savage assault
at the following vulnerable points: First,
acceptance of full responsibility for a revo
lutioary conspiracy by which a friendly
government was overthrown through the
treason of the chief military officers
of that government, aided and abetted
by the embassador of the United States
proceeding wholly on his own initia
tive; second, absolute indifference to
the assassinations in cold blood of the
three chief personages of the over
thrown government notwithstanding that
our government had particularly requested
the safeguarding of the life of President
Madero after his betrayal and fall. Euro
pean governments might recognize Huerta
without compromising their honor. But
could our government? One can imagine
the agonized efforts of an administration
at Washington seeking to justify to its
horde of critics a recognition policy, under
the circumstances disclosed during the past
year.
Embassador Wilson, according to his
best judgment, no doubt, helped in
the overthrow of President Madero in
order to avoid a military interven
tion: but in passing beyond the lim
its of his proper diplomatic function he
aided in the establishment of new con
ditions which made the situation even
worse than before. President Wilson, de
clining to indorse the method of Madero’s
overthrow and to accept moral responsi
bility for the assassinations of the two
Maderos and Pino Suarez, has also sought
strenuously to avoid intervention by force.
May he pull through and succeed in this
prime object of his policy.
GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE.
Criticism of Gov Walsh’s appearance
before the legislative committee on con
stitutional amendments, in support of the
initiative and referendum, as “unprece
'dented” would be more weighty if the
governor had not been already criticized
for failing to appear on a previous occa
sion. On February 7 the Boston Tran
script reported a member, presumably the
chairman, of the committee on constitu
tional amendments as saying for publica
tion:--
Notwithstanding the governor’s strong
language tin his inaugural) in regard to
the necessity for holding a constitutional
convention, neither he nor anyone repre
senting him appeared before us in advo
cacy of his recommendation.
After so pointed a reminder to the gover
nor. the committee cannot lament the
smashing of a time-honored precedent now
that he has made the personal appearance
evidently desired at an earlier date.
What did the precedent amount to. any
how? If the governor in person can ad
dress the whole Legislature, may be not
also address in person a part of it in the
shape of a committee? The closer the
touch between governors and Legislatures
the better the team work. One of Wood
row Wilson's chief services to government
in the United States has been his demon
stration both as governor of New Jersey
ami as president, of the country that a
much closer and more effective co-opera
tion between executives and legislative bod
ies than has bean known to exist hitherto
is entirely possible without the slightest
strain upon the federal or the stat* con
stitutions.
Gov Walsh is moving in the right direc-
THE SPRINGFIELD WEEKLY REPUBLICAN: THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1914.
tion. if he is seeking to establish more in
timate relations with the law-making body.
It has been a weakness of our system to
develop antagonism between executives
and Legislatures. Anything likely to re
pair that defect in American constitutional
government should be welcomed.
THE TOLI“8 EXEMPTION.
If it is a question of the proper in
terpretation of the words "all nations"
in the Hay-Pauncefote. treaty, the testi
mony of men who helped to frame the
treaty may be of value to disputants con
cerning the canal tolls exemption. Henry
White, former embassador to France, was
secretary of the American embassy at
London when the treaty was made. Said
he. in an address at Washington last
week; — . , t
American diplomats who negotiated the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty had not thought of
exempting the United States when they
agreed to the provision stipulating that
all nations should use the Panama canal
on equal terms. Nobody not in touch with
diplomatic affairs could realize what a
deplorable thing it was to know that this
country was going back on its word.
There never could be any doubt that the
words “all nations” included the United
States.
Joseph H. Choate was American em
bassador to Great Britain when the treaty
.was negotiated, and he had a hand in it.
This is what Mr Choate says:—
I think that it is proper that I should
say that the clause in the Panama act
exempting coastwise American shipping
from the payment of tolls is in direct vio
lation of the treaty. I venture to say
that in the whole course of the negotia
tions of this particular treaty, no claim,
no suggestion, was made that there should
be any exemption of anybody,
John Hay and Lord Pauncefote are dead,
but there isn't the slightest doubt that
they would agree with Messrs Choate and
White. The tolls exemption should be re
pealed. ___
BARGAINING WITH ULSTER.
What Mr Asquith has to offer Belfast
san remains a dark secret, and the ef
forts made in Parliament last week to force
his hand were fruitless. How anything
could have been expected of the negotia
tions said to have taken place, which the
unionist leader, Bonar law. lately de
clared to have proved futile is not very
clear. How is bargaining possible when
the terms to be offered are not revealed?
It has been mysteriously said that when
Parliament met the country would learn
what the opposition had been offered and
had refused. But how can a proposal be
refused without knowledge of what it is?
To the complaint of Bonar Law that no
offer had been made Mr Asquith’s spokes
men have reiterated that there had been
such an offer, and enlarged upon its hand
someness without throwing any light upon
its nature. And now it appears that the
offer in question was simply the offer—to
make an offer! We can hardly wonder
that no progress has been made toward
"settlement by consent” On the other
hand, the unionists have been equally re
luctant to suggest terms, and for obvious
reasons. In the opposition we may recog
nize three distinct groups, the fanatics
who are unalterably opposed to home rule,
and would not be satisfied even with the
exclusion. of Ulster; the moderates who
sincerely fear oppressiAh by the Trish ma
jority. and are honestly seeking an ar
rangement which will safeguard the inter
ests of Belfast, and the politicians who are
using the issue, and the hot feelings it has
aroused, to embarrass the government and
are looking not for settlement by consent,
but for a means of smashing the coalition
in power and compelling a general elec
tion.
These circumstances go far to explain
the reluctance of the Asquith ministry
to make a plain statement, and in the
charge of “drifting” there may be consid
erable truth. The government, in fact,
is in an extremely awkward position. It
owes its existence to the support of the
Irish nationalists, who are the strongest
element in the coalition, and without
whom the ministry could not last a day.
That John Redmond holds Mr Asquith
“in the hollow of his hand,” as alleged
by the opposition, is a rough way of stat
ing what is the obvious sact —that Irish
support is absolutely necessary to the exe
cution of the government’s very important
program.
How far the government has given bonds
to Mr Redmond is what nobody knows,
and just here the question of the date
for announcing what concessions will be
offered to Ulster becomes important. It
was charged a fortnight ago by one of the
unionist leaders that a written pledge
existed that Ulster was to be handed
over to the nationalists in return for sup
port by Irish members of the budget Only
extremists of course, would swallow so
unlikely a bit of gossip, but on the home
rule question there are plenty of extrem
ists, and the gist of their hostility to de
lay seems to be a fear that the ministry
will keep its terms secret, till it is irre
trievably committed by the faithful per
formance by the Irish members of their
part of the bargain. And what matters, of
course, is not whether these allegations
are true, but whether the Ulsterites be
lieve them true.
On the other hand it is plain that the
government increasingly feels the gravity
of the situation, and is correspondingly
less likely to commit itself without possi
bility of retrieval to a course involving a
serious danger of civil war. Nor has the
outcome of recent by-elections, specially
that at Bethnal Green which resulted in
the defeat of « cabinet member, strength
ened the position of the government,
which could only be warranted in extreme
measures by confidence of having the coun
try strongly behind it. Tire by-elections
may be variously interpreted but they
hardly justify such a confidence. Thus
between the pressure on the one hand of
the Irish nationalist members who feel
their advantage to the full, and on the
other of a very determined opposition by
those who declare civil war to be justified
by a corrupt bargain, the government is
of course forced to the utmost circum
spection, and its refusal to suggest terms
may be due partly to a desire to keep the
situation as fluid as possible till the last
moment.'
Many conjectures are inevitably being
made a# to the line Mr Asquith's govern
ment will Anally take, and as plausible
as any is that of Reynold’s weekly, which
asserts that it bite snbstantial ground for
its revelations. According .to thia au
thority the copcassiqne made would be
closely in line with those proposed by Sir
Horace Plunkett and would include: First,
। additional representation in the Irish Sen
■ nto for the Ulster minority: second, fresh
। provisions limiting the power of the Irish
Parliament in certain matters affecting
' the minority; third, administration of the
; customs and the posh-office to be retained
I by the imperial authorities; fourth, all
i Ireland to be placed under the bill, but
; an opportunity given any county, includ
! ing Ulster, to vote itself out of the opera
| tion of the bill, even before the parlia
-1 ment is constituted.
: This is very sweeping indeed, and there
। is great disparity among the items. In-
I creased representation at Dublin would
■ not in the least reassure Ulster: the the
! «ry no doubt is that in connection with
■ the other safeguards it would help to in
duce Ulster not to exercise the right of
secession. The proposal goes much fur
ther than the original suggesiion that after
a fixed term, of say 10 years, Ulster
should have the right to be exempted from
the home rule act if it should then so de
sire. On such lines it ought to be possible
to still any reasonable anxiety at Bel
fast. but would the Irish nationalists ac
cept any theory of nationality which left
any county free to vote itself out of the
nation? It may be doubted, but they
might very well accept the first three items
•in the program, and John Redmond has
repeatedly declared his willingness to grant
the amplest of safeguards provided Ulster
contentedly takes its place in the Irish na
tion. But the problem of finding a basis
for reconciliation which both sides could
accept seems as difficult as ever, and the
divulgation of the government's plan,
promised before Easter, will be awaited
with anxiety.
LETTING GEORGE DO IT.
It is remarkable how many nonworkers
nowadays are anxious lest other people be
spoiled for work. How to keep the young
men on the farm is a favorite theme with
thinkers who lost no time themselves in
getting away from the farm and find lec
turing much easier and pleasanter than
plowing. The Carnegie investigators and
the bureau of education at Washington
are strong for educating farmers’ sons to
stay where they are; others are for leaving
them uneducated for the same reason. Sen
ator Page of Vermont was educated With
no fads or frills, and got no school cred
its for doing the chores, but the farm did
not hold him: the other day he said
frankly:—
Yet when I reached the time of life
where I was looking forward to see what
I would do for a vocation. I need not say
that I thought there was probably some
wav in which I could earn a livelihood eas
ier’ and with greater pleasure than by
working on the farm.
Isn’t that the root of the matter? If
the lure of the city is stronger than the
call of the-farm it is useless to scold: the
only remedy is to make the farm more at
tractive. That will take care of itself as
population increases and land becomes
more precious; the man to be envied will
be the man with a farm. But there will
always be work which is not particularly
pleasant or particularly well paid, and
society will have to learn to control it# in
dignation at the reluctance of people—other
people, of course—to do' it. Just now. for
example, there is fnUcK disgusted amaze
ment at the scarcity of servants. A New
Yorker the oWr day wrote to the news
papers deploring the fact that with 250.000
jobless men in the city he could not get a
good butler at a moderate wage. There
are many moralists who denounce the fool
ish ambition -to rise in the world or at any
rate to seek an easier and more genteel
employment, to draw a salary instead of
wages. There is much good sense in their
preachment, but the trouble is that it is
always addressed to somebody else—let
George do it.
This is a problem which society will have
to settle if it is not to grow top-heavy,
and it is of no use to look to the old world
for a solution. They order things better
in Germany, to be sure, and our educators
cast longing eyes in that direction for hints
on efficiency. But Germany gets its effi
ciency by a stratification for which we
have no place. In a free country it is for
George to say whether he will do it or
not. and if he elects to leave it to Giovanni
lecturing is quite futile. Have we not
been leaning a little too hard on George?
Society has its work that needs to be done,
and has given too little thought to the
doer. Now it is threatened with a mass
of drifters, neither content with what they
might do nor qualified for anything else.
If it is not to return to the caste system,
from which we have happily escaped, so
ciety will have to provide for George, not
only by letting him do it but by helping
him to do it and by taking an interest in
the doing of it. The need may be for bet
ter pay or for better education or for a
better social rating—whatever the trouble
is It will need sympathetic study. Just
now the cry is for reforming George, but
the reform will have to go further than
that.
B. AND M. LEGISLATION.
Commissioner Anderson's statement con
cerning the part which it is now' desired
that the Massachusetts Legislature should
play in the railroad dissolution process
was clarifying to a gratifying degree. It
had been understood, of course, that the
New Haven’s stock in the Boston and
Maine could not be sold without the con
sent of the Massachusetts Legislature. The
terms of the act of 1909 creating the Bos
ton holding company, the corporation
through which the New Haven holds its
Boston and Maine shares, determines that
fact clearly enough. For section 3 says:—
The stock of the Boston and Maine rail
road which may be acquired by said Bos
ton railroad holding company shall not be
sold by it without express authority from
the Legislature; and any proposed sale
thereof shall he reported to the board of
railroad commissioners, who shall investi
gate and report to the Legislature, respect
ing the advisability or expediency of such
sale. The bonds, notes or other evidences
of Indebtedness of the Boston and Maine
railroad which may be acquired by said
Boston railroad bolding company shall not
be sold, transferred, pledged or otherwise
disposed of without the approval of the
board of railroad commissioners, but this
provision shall not be construed so as to
impair the rights of creditors of said Bos
ton railroad holding company to secure
payment of any indebtedness due them.
The popular-, misunderstanding plainly
arose from the fact that no “sale" of the
Boston and Maine stock held by the New
Haven through the Boston holding com
pany was directly involved in the proposed
transfer of the, stock to the trustees soon
to be appointed by agreement of th* New
Haven company and the federal depart
ment of justice. The stock might, be trana-
ferred, consequently, blit later on when
the trustees should conic to make a Sale
they would have to secure authorization
from the Legislature. Forcing the ques
tion upon the Legislature now. when an ac
tual sale will not ba made for several
years probably, may have impressed many
lookers-on as a new form of obstruction
to the dissolution process.
It is admitted by Commissioner Ander
son that earlier in these proceedings he
expected that the agreement between the
New Haven company and the department
of justice would be executed first of all,
without going to the Legislature; and
that legislative co-operation would come
at a later stage. What has happened is
simply that the negotiators have con
cluded that any delay in consulting the
Legislature would be unwise. There are
strong reasons unquestionably for taking
this view. The Boston holding company
was created by the Legislature with no
thought of these federal dissolution pro
ceedings; the transfer of the stock to
trustees by the executive power alone
would leave the holding company the cre
ation of the Legislature with nothing to
hold. In any event, the Legislature must
sometime be asked to consent to the
sale of the stock; how much better it is,
therefore, not to treat the Legislature
so as to wound its dignity by ignoring
it in the present stage.
Still another reason presents itself why
the Legislature’s consent to the pending
dissolution agreement may well be sought
immediately. In section 4 of the Bos
ton holding company act it is provided
that “the commonwealth may at any time
‘by act of the Legislature, upon one
■year’s notice, take or acquire by pur
‘dhase or otherwise the stock, bonds,
‘notes and other evidences of indebtedness”
issued by the said Boston holding com
pany. This commonwealth lien would be
best disposed of now. it appears, rather
than have it cause embarrassment later
on when the trustees might be seeking a
market for the Boston and Maine stock.
Were this dissolution the direct result
of a decree by the United States supreme
court, state laws might not stand in
the way inasmuch as the federal anti
trust law is supreme as against any state
law running counter to it. But the dis
solution now pending is not a process
having its origin in a court decree; it
is a voluntary arrangement for the ob
servance of what the federal law is held
to require. It is probably necessary,
therefore, that all parties and common
wealths involved shall be consulted be
times.
When Gov Walsh goes to the Legisla
ture with this business, as he will very
soon, the Legislature will have its in
ings. May it be merciful.
THE STUDY OF«jNEMPLOYMENT.
It is impossible to say how much great
er this winter is the problem of unem
ployment the country over than in other
winters. No one at the national con
ference on unemployment in New York
this week will be able to present trust
worthy statistics. The secretary of the
association on unemployment, an organi
zation of some years’ standing, shows
that the latest national statiSties avail
able are as least 10 years old. In the
census of 1900, it appeared that nearly
3,000,000 workers in the United States
lost from one to three months in idle
ness each year. About 2,000,000 belonged
in trades where from four to six months
were lost. As late as 1905, the federal
census of manufactures showed 7,017,138
workers employed at one time and only
4,599,091 at another time, so that nearly
2,500.000 workers were either unem
ployed or obliged to'get other work. Since
1905 the country’s population has sub
stantially increased and seasonal unem
ployment. has increased in a corresponding
ratio, probably.
Such statistics are far from the precision
that could be desired, however. There
are manufacturing industries, such as
textile mills, which suffer every year from
a labor shortage in the summer months,
through no fault of the mill manage
ment. Textile operatives often prefer to
leave the factories and get outdoor work
in the warm season, and this has been
particularly true of French-Canadian
operatives in New England. Statistics like
those referred to are also vitiated by the
habitual restlessness of large numbers of
wage-earners in all kinds of trades. They
tire of steady, hard work in one place
or at one job and flit about for the sake
of change and novelty. This is particularly
true of young and unmarried workers.
But national statistics aside, there, can
be no doubt that the unemployment prob
lem in this country is becoming more
acute and menacing as the country fills
up and European conditions are more near
ly duplicated. For some years 10,000 home
less men have spent the winter in St
Louis. Most of them have patronized five
and 10-cent lodging-houses, while many
have been cared for by the city, A
peculiar vagrant class has been developed
in the Southwest, it is said; in the warm
months these people drift from the Mis
sissippi valley through the southwestern
states to the Pacific coast picking up a
living by doing casual work on the way.
Gypsy-like, they seem to like the life
in the open. In the winter they pile into
the cities. . . . . . ,
From this sort of unemployed are re
cruited many of “the industrial workers
‘of the world" who seek to capitalize for
agitation or riotous purposes the recurring
unemployment problem of the winter sea
son. In Kansas City the past winter
scores of followers of this organization
have refused to work when given it: and
even when sent to the city’s penal farm
as vagrants they have still refused and
have capped their performance by burii
ing the clothing obtained from the
municipality. Such persons present the un
employable problem, not the Unemployed
problem. And with them, as'the unem
ployable, must be classed all the wilfpl
delinquents, the derelicts and wastrels of
society who have passed beyond the point
■ where they can be economically efficient.
It is necessary to distinguish always bd
; tween these two problems.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier complains that there
are 100,(XX) men seeking work unsuccess
fully tn Canada. And Canada is a young
and growing country. A slowing up hi
business, the cessation of the builditig boom
In the Canadian West-all this combines
to make unemployment felt in the Domin
ion also. Tn 1913, we received at
United States ports over 1,000,000 alien
immigrants and they were cast immediately
info the labor equation. Canada was sim
ilarly affected by the immigration move
ment.
The state free employment bureau <sf
Massachusetts, m its report for January,
pointed out some of the difficulties in find
ing work for the applicants: “A large
■number of those Sent to the office by pub
‘lie-spirited people are hondieupped in one
'way or another: they are top old, have no
'trade or vocation, are physically unab*e
‘to perform certain kinds of work, or are
'unable to accept places out of town for
‘the reason that they cannot leave those
‘who are dependent upon them for sup
•port ” There is often work, in short, but
trouble then arises in making the right
man meet the right job in the right place.
A large dry goods house in New York
recently advertised for several hundred
clerks and was unable to get enough of the
quality desired. About the same time,
a mass-meeting of unemployed women re
vealed the fact that very many of them
were girls who had lost work in the stores
with the passing of the holiday season. It
is an old story that any woman willing
to go into domestic service may almost
dictate her own terms. The cry in the
cities, ‘we cannot find work,” at one sea
son of the year is echoed at another season
of the year by manufacturers and farmers
crying, "We cannot get help.” They have
an annual winter unemployment problem
in California, yet the state is very much
underpopulated, while labor is scarce ordi
narily and, on account of the opposition
to oriental immigration, the state's natural
wealth is underdeveloped. These anomalies
may be observed throughout the labor
world.
The system of state labor exchanges, now
established in 19 states of the Union, must
be much more highly developed. They must
also be i-orrelated and given an interstate
character. Clearing-houses of information
must be accessible in all the great labor
centers. In England to-day. the govern
ment itself aids the idle and penniless
workman in traveling to where the job is.
But. aside from a widespread system of
labor exchanges, manufacturing must be
regularized so far as possible so that the
evils of seasonal industry may be mini
mized. The problem as a whole really
reaches down to the depths of our social
and industrial organization and, judging
by appearances, the study of it in all seri
ousness and determination has no more
than begun in this country.
MR WICKERSHAM'S LEAD.
Mr Wickersham is not now in politics
and what he says may have no political
significance. But he has declared very
roundly for the exemption of railroads
from the operation of the antitrust law.
The former attorney-general would place
within the jurisdiction of the interstate
commerce commission the question of the
acquirement by any railroad corporation
of an interest in another interstate rail
road, the test being whether such acquisi
tion would unduly restrain interstate com
merce or promote a dangerous monopoly.
Mr Wickersham is on solid ground in say
ing that “control of the commission over
‘rates and practices of railroads is so
‘comprehensive that reason for subjecting
‘interstate carriers to the antitrust law no
'longer exists.” ■
The republican party might do much
worse than to follow Mr Wickersham’s
lead on this question. If the party is look
ing for chances to criticize the Wilson
trust legislation, it might well drop petty
fault-finding and go in for a real policy of
progress in the treatment of monopoly.
The first important step is to separate
natural monopolies like railroads, which
are already subject to close regulation by
the government, from artificial monopolies
like the great industrial trusts. It is
stupid to apply the same law to all alike.
WOMEN AND SPECIALIZATION.
One suspects a fallacy in the argument
of Mrs Charles Perkins Gilman, who told
an audience in New York the other day
that women are far behind men as human
beings. Civilised man. she eaid. could do
thousands of things which the savage man
could not, but could civilized woman, she
asked, do many more things than savage
women? Some thought she eould not do
so much. But much the same thing has
been Mid of modern man. that "the indi-
Mdual withers,” that specialization has
reduced capacity for doing many things,
that men are less interesting, less devel
oped than in more primitive times.
There is at least danger of confusing the
accomplishment of the mass with the ac
cbmplishment of the individual. We talk
easily of man’s mastery of Nature, but
for most of us this does not go far beyond
knowing how to push a button. In this
there is nothing reprehensible; if every
body had to master the complicated tech
nic on which modern society rest*, machin
ery would be not servant but master. In
vention has enormously increased the re
sources of society, but it has not propor
tionately developed man.
It is Mrs Gilman's idea that woman has
remained stationary as a household drudge,
while man has gone forward developing all
the arts and sciences and industries of
human civilization. The arts and sciences
and industries have developed, certainly,
and man has been the great innovator, but
it does not follow that men have “gone
‘forward” while women have “remained
‘stationary.”
There is no evidence, for example, that
occupation with science or machinery is
more favorable to the Inheritance of brains
than occupation with the oldest of indus
tries like agriculture, carpentry and stone
cutting. Nor can the varied occupations
of a “household drudge” be deemed in the
least unfavorable to the inheritance and
transmission of good qualities. We have
no reason to think that in the molding of
men and women by heredity Nature dis
criminates because of their probable oc
cupation in our highly artificial world. She
set her patterns long ago. and whatever
disparities exist are to be attributed in
part to these fundamental differences, re
peated generation after generation, and in
part to the radical difference in ths train
ing of the sexes. It is not easy to show
that from the beginning of history man
bus advanced or woman Jagged behind.
Ln such an assumption of the essential
stability of the race, there Ie no ground
for discouragement, but rather the reverse,,
for at no time, probably, has more than,
: aa insignificant fraction of the available
•human ability been called into play, and
even though human nature remain much
the same what can be done with it is ea-
pable of indefinite extension. Thus while
we may not share the hopes of those who
expect woman by a’few generations of
more varied employment to be’ transformed
by progressive inheritance into a new crea
ture, we need not, on the other hand,
believe that the nature of her employment
in the past lias made her, as Mrs Gilman
suggests, progressively inferior to man. '
The contrary is the case, for' 'While the
ratio of ability, whatever that is, tnay not
have altered for thousands of years, the
further' civilization advances the more
work and the more varied work it offers
which women can do as well as men.
Among its . many consequences, good or
bad. specialization tends to multiply easy
jobs and to provide places for weaklings
of all sorts, physical or mental. Even in
the intellectual field, so carefully has it
been marked out into garden plots, useful
work can be done by diligent persons of
no very great force or originality; science
has provided the method and the instru
ments, and workers of many kinds are
needed. In the modern indoor world, again,
there is abundant employment for those
who have intellectual gifts but are handi
capped by physical weakness. In both
ways woman benefits and will benefit still
more by the evolution, and there is not
the least reason to think that a limited
range of employment in the past has made
ip more difficult for. her to take advantage
of these new opportunities.
On the other hand, such a tendency
means specialization, and it is a question
whether the world is not already over
burdened with highly specialized 'individ
uals. We have to count the cost ag well
as the advantages. A specialized job may
mean increased skill, easier work, escape
from unpleasant tasks and responsibilities,
and still be little adapted to produce char
acter, resourcefulness, and all-round de
velopment or to further the true interests
of society. Mrs Gilman complains that
woman has "specialized in sex,” but she
has certainly generalized in a multitude of
other things, and this has been a whole
some corrective to the overspecialized mod
ern habit of mind. Women are rapidly
making their way into new fields of work
and show much ability for acquiring the
necessary technic.
Whether one likes it or not, the move
ment will go on, and we may as well as
sume that the results will be partly good
and partly had, precisely as has been the
case with men in exchanging for artificial
specialties the old employments which
kept men close to Nature, gave them varied
skill, and in some ways knit them into
closer human relations. These are the
employments which conserve the race, and
among them none rank higher than the
employments of women. There is justice
in the argument that many of these em
ployments have been taken away, and that
many women must find a substitute outside
the home. The mistake is in thinking that
three fragmentary succedanea can be a
full substitute. They must be taken, in so
far as conditions compel it, but it should
be with a clear recognition that men have
not yet solved the problem of fitting the
job to the best interests of the individual
and of society, and that any addition from
any source to the army of specialists is
by no means an unmixed advantage.
“Woman,” said a 19th-century philosopher,
“is the sleep of the race”; he oould hardly
say it-in the 20th, and there are times
when we almost wonder whether the raee
is getting enough sleep.
SINS AND STATISTICS.
A deplorable showing as to the cost of
tobacco is made by a writer in the new
Unpopular Review. By the last census
the manufactured tobacco in the United
States was worth, in 1909. $414996.000.
But this is only a part of the expenditure.
Two years ago Prof Bailey of Yale esti
mated that the people of the United States
spent $1,100,000,000 on tobacco in a single
year; by thia time it may be $1,200,000.-
000. Pipes and smokers’ articles account
for nearly $1,600,000.
Compared with other kinds of expendi
ture the total is staggering. It is twice
what is spent on railroad travel or on the
government of the United States, interest
on the national debt included. Annually
the country spends on tobacco three times
the cost of the Panama canal, or three
times the loss involved in the San Fran
cisco earthquake. The annual total is but
a trifle less than the combined expendi
ture on armaments by Germany. Russia,
France. Great Britain and Japan, and
considerably more than the huge war in
demnity exacted from France by Ger
many.
But to the direct cost must be added a
great loss of property from fire caused by
careless smokers. The figures are nat
urally hard to get; they are set down as
from $45,000,000 to $90,000,000. exclusive
of forest fires, which in 1908 in Massachu
setts alone caused a loss of $33,000 in those
cases traced to smokers. Then we must
add the increase in the cost of living due
to the pre-emption of the land needed to
raise annually in the United States to
bacco worth over $100,000,000. Incidental
expenses are for smoking cars, represent
ing $71,000,000 in capital on which inter
est and depreciation have to be charged,
and other special accommodations have to
be provided. Moreover, the cost of keep
ing the world clean must be enormously
enhanced, though naturally no figures are
available. Against this enormous cost, not
to speak of loss of time and whatever in
jury may be done to health, the uuthor cah
find nothing to put down on the credit
aide of the account except “smoker's eu
■phoria,” that is. whatever pleasure those
who use tobacco get out of it.
It is a staggering total, and the first im
pression may be one of gratitude that
women dislike tobacco. If they took to it
the bill would be more than doubled, for
they would no doubt insist on mono
grammed cigarets. and arithmetic would
hardly serve to compute the cost. The sec
ond impression is that there must be some
thing wrong with the statistics. After all,
the aborigines of Nortn America, whoso
economic status was incomparably below
ours, were at least able to afford the lux
ury. if it is u luxury, of a pipe of tohneto.
It would be an odd paradox if iherensiug
wealth made that no longer possible!
Indeed, bn scrutinizing the figures certain
fallacies do appear, and since they are
typical of some statistical errors which
frequently recur it may be worth while
to consider them, leaving the tobacco
question quite to one side. In the first
place, there is the fallacy of the undis
tributed total, if we bad the statistics of
a million planets as wicked as ours the aunt
of their sins end follies would be a mill*