Springfield weekly Republican. [volume], June 18, 1914, Page 2, Image 2

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

Image provided by: Boston Public Library

                
2
A GREAT ACHIEVEMENT.
Time will show whether the repeal of
the canal tolls exemption clause of the
Panama act marks the culmination of
President Wilson’s remarkable influence
with Congress. If such is to be the rec
ord, if from now on the president's in
fluence upon legislation is to decline,
enough has happened in the year and
four months of his administration to
make Mr Wilson's success in getting
things done that he wants done by the
law-making body a very notable chapter in
our’ political history.
When the president asked Congress to
repeal the canal tolls exemption, The
Republican expressed the view that he
had undertaken the hardest task imagin
able. The difficulty of the project has been
illustrated in each stage of the repeal pro
cess. A plank of the democratic national
platform had to be repudiated. The dem
ocratic leaders of the House had to be
bowled over and the bill passed in defi
ance of their protests. A hostile public
agitation in the press had to be encoun
tered. by no means ladylike in its meth
ods of attack. A long, tedious debate
in the Senate had to be weathered finally,
while political capital was being accumu
lated by the opposition for campaign uses
in the fall. The president at no time
was sure that he was on the popular side;
indeed, there were elements of the issue
that afforded his opponents a rare chance
to vilify him as the “tool” of a foreign
power.
The incredible has happened. Repeal
is accomplished. After all, the man does
things. In his quiet, tenacious, imperturb
able way, he makes history. Nor can
anyone, even Mr Hearst, be sure that the
outcome is distasteful to the bulk of the
people. Congress might easily have been
made to seethe with revolt had public
opinion in reality not sustained the pres
ident. But Congress has registered his
will by respectable majorities. Senator
Tillman believes that the democratic party
has suffered serious injury from the
internecine conflict incident to repeal; yet
no such result need be apprehended un
less the president has wounded the na
tional pride by insisting that the nation
scrupulously observe its treaty obligations.
As for the greedy coastwise shipping
monopoly, does any sensible person sup
pose that its demand for a subsidy where
all other American ships must pay toll
can fill with terror a party that has al
ways fought the subsidy policy?
The demand for exemption in favor of
a special interest was a domestic com
posite of greed and impudence, in the first
place: and since then the special interest
has been hiding behind an alleged treaty
right and a spurious patriotism. That,
perhaps, was a small matter, but in its
more important international aspects, the
issue has rightly commanded the most
serious attention because of the impossible
position this country was placed in be
fore the world. Onr international good
faith was under suspicion in all foreign
countries; and it began to be seriously
asked abroad whether the United States
government could be depended upon to
keep any pledges whatever. We have that
on the authority of Senator Lodge, who
is not a political friend of the present ad
ministration. If we were to have any
friends in the family of nations,—and
the time is past when we can afford to
regard friends abroad with bumptious dis
dain —it was necessary to remove the rapid
ly spreading impression concerning Ameri
ca's unconscionable indifference to her in
ternational obligations.
There has been bottomless hypocrisy in
Congress, particularly in the Senate, in
dealing with this question. Senators have
attacked the president for demanding re
peal instead of arbitration of the dis
puted treaty clauses, yet arbitration with
England was made impossible by the at
titude of those very senators who had it
in their power, on account of the two
thirds vote requirement, to block the pas
sage of the necessary arbitration agree
ment- They held up for months the ratifica
tion of the limited five-year arbitration
treaty with England, which the two gov
ernments wished to renew, for fear that
under its provisions the canal tolls exemp
tion might be forced before the Hague
tribunal.
Now that the president has forced repeal
outright, the demand for arbitration may
grow in volume. There ean be no possible
objection to arbitration of the disputed
treaty clauses, if a case can be made up
for the consideration of an international
court, in the absence of a specific grievance
against the United States in its canal ad
ministration. The great thing, however,
that must give satisfaction to the Ameri
can people is that the world-wide doubt
as to thia country’s desire to fulfil its inter
national obligations is dissipated. Repeal
demonstrates America's fidelity to treaty
pledges, especially in the sense that she
declines to enforce a treaty in a way favor
able to a portion of her citizens, entirely
regardless of the strong and sincere views
to the contrary of the other contracting
power.
BRYAN’S PEACE TREATIES.
There was much jesting and even scorn
for Secretary Bryan's ‘peace treaties”
when he initiated the series by signing one
with humble Salvador. He kept on how
ever, and signed a treaty whenever a gov
ernment anywhere would agree that it was
a good thing. His list gradually length
ened until he got as great a power as
Denmark to consider the idea. From Sal
vador to Denmark made a string that
caused no little amusement among the
horde >l Bryan knockers. It was simply rich,
really, because not a country on the sec
retary’s list was ever likely to go to war
with the United States over any conceiv
able issue.
It is now the secretary's turn to be
amused. "Gentlemen.” one can fancy him
saying, "please walk up and see these in
teresting treaties which have just been
‘signed by the embassadors of his Britan
nic majesty and the French republic.”
There they are—treaties identical with the
one that little despised Salvador originally
signed, and all designed to promote the
pacific adjustment of international dis
putes. The list now runs from Salvador
to England, and that is not half bad.
Thore i* certainly nothing ridiculous about
it. Prof John Bassett Moore, whose ex
pertne**. erudition and experience in the
state department -they; constantly played
up against Secretary Bryan's crudeness,
ignorance and amateurishness, says the
Bryan peace treaty is an "advance” on
anything before ft.'
The Bryan peace treaty is simplicity
itself. It does not provide for the arbi
tration of anything. It merely binds the
contracting powers to refer to a commis
sion of investigation for a period of one
year any question threatening war which
has not yielded to ordinary diplomatic
treatment and which does not involve the
national honor. Even the final report of
the commission would not be binding on
the contracting powers; but it would be
published to the world and an enlightened
world opinion based on the report of neu
tral commissioners would then be brought
into the equation of peace or war. The
plan adapts to international conditions
the inquiry and publicity features of the
Canadian labor disputes law. It has the
one great merit of compelling a pause
while facts are established, before nations
can rush into hostilities.
These Bryan treaties, by reason of their
moderation, simplicity and practical qual
ity, deserve serious attention. There is
nothing visionary about them. Mr Bryan
is the great force for peace in this ad
ministration. He should be encouraged in
his good work along peace lines; and he
now merits congratulations in having ob
tained the co-operation and support of
two such powers as Great Britain and
France.
AMOS PINCHOT'S IDEALISM.
Amos Pinchot has had the initial ad
vantage of all the publicity previously
gained by his gifted brother Gifford, yet his
recent attack on George W. Perkins re
veals him unmistakably as a man of
original force and initiative. His objec
tions to G. W. P. are not new. Those
who have never stomached the organizer
of the harvester trust and the long-time
director of the steel trust as a social re
former recognize the objections as old cro
nies. Objections to G. W. P.. however, are
not so important in themselves as in the fact
that other progressives may be like-mind
ed. It is the Kansas view Mr Pinchot
has aired—for ex-Goy Stubbs and Will
iam Allen White have indorsed the anti-
Perkins movement. Is it also the Jowa
view, the Nebraska view, the Michigan
view, that Mr Perkins should retire from
his conspicuous position as one of the
leaders of the progressive party?
It may be important to find out how
prevalent is the Amos Pinchot estimate of
Mr Perkins's character as a reformer and
the value of his services as a progres
sive. But Mr Roosevelt and Amos, it is
already known, are in no sort of agree
ment on the question: and, as a judge of
public sentiment Mr Roosevelt has had by
far the more training and adult experi
ence. There will be nd bouncing of G.
W, P. while T. R. is in command: and
T. R. may be exhibiting political wisdom.
It is too late to make a sacrifice of the
heaviest contributor. If he was a good
progressive in 1912, why isn't he a good
progressive now? The Roosevelt ‘mind
has a severely practical side in politics,’
and the Roosevelt following is usually
rapturous over its display. If Amos Pin
chot can beat out the colonel by relieving
the party of its Perkins streak, he should
he satisfied with nothing short of start
ing a party of his own, which will make
the political millennium ah actuality
while we wait for so A glorious a consum
mation.
It is to be feared the trouble with the
Amoses is that, in the organization of a
political party in a country that has all
sorts of bone-headed people with votes,
they demand that the party shall analyze
at 100 per cent of the good, the true and
the beautiful. There is something very
admirable about the Ambsite creed: the
country may well glory in its exponents.
But it takes leaders like the colonel, who
can find a use for Mr Perkins and even
Mr Flinn, to “start Something” that will
be talked about for years to come and
be mentioned in school histories. The story
of Armageddon can never be written with
George Perkins and his checkbook left
out. Remember that, Ames.
REDMOND AND THE VOLUNTEERS
What is the significance of the national
ist volunteer movement in Ireland which
in a few short weeks has reached such
formidable dimensions! By June 1 a
force of 130.000 men was claimed, and
recruits were coming in- at. the rate of
5000 a week. The majority are not. yet
armed, but the work of providing arms is
going on, and a manifesto has been is
sued by the provisional executive which
asserts that the right of a free people to
carry arms in defense of their freedom
is an elementary fact of political history.
The manifesto adds: “Since the action
'of the government places in the way of
‘lrishmen favorable to national autono
'my obstacles which admittedly are in
‘operative in the case of those opposed
'to the policy of Irish self-government,
'we demand the Immediate withdrawal of
‘the proclamation prohibiting the importa
tion of arms.”
The immediate cause of the movement
is plain enough ; it is by way of answer
to Sir Edward Carson's unionist volun
teers. T. P. O'Connor says that the in
cident at the Curragh was largely respon
sible, that it made the Irish see that they
must defend themselves.
But what is the program of the volun
teers, and who is to command them? The
question is given fresh importance by
John Redmond’s clash with the pro
visional committee. A majority of its
members, he says, are not supporters of
the Irish party. What then do they sup
port? To judge from some speeches, they
are ardent pacifists. T. P. O’Connor says:
It is also one of the curiosities of this
movement that it excites as much interest
and sympathy among English liberals as
among Irishmen. It is known that sev
eral men among the liberal»leaders have
expressed satisfaction at the inception
and growth of the movement.
That is a curiosity of politics, certainly;
nettling a political controversy by force
of arms is not very good liberal doctrine,
and a good home ruler might legitimately
object to copying Carson methods. But
the liberal sympathizers in England have
apparently persuaded themselves that the
new movement is all brotherly love, that
it means a happy blending of the orange
and green. The London Daily Chronicle
says: "Further evidence of the desire of
‘the nationalist volunteers to join hands
‘with the Ulster volunteers in order to
‘solve the Irish problem was furnished by
an ineident to-day at the Kingston urban
‘district council." The incident was small
enough, being simply the passage of a
THE SPRINGFIELD WEEKLY REPUBLICAN: THURSDAY, TUNE 18. 19l£
resolution ,in which the chairman declared
orange and green to have blended. On
the other hand, at Limerick, Mr London,
member of Parliament, was quoted as
speaking in a public meeting to this ef
fect:—
Mr London added that when the tory
party. returned to power they might pos
sibly be for giving better terms to Ulster,
but the Irish party could turn to the vol
unteers and say. "You leave the bill on the
statute book or else .” They knew the
“else" themselves. Whether they had to
face Carson or England armed, they would
be ready. They were willing to be friends
with those opposed to them in the past,
but if they had to defend their rights they
would do so knowing they had the great
democracy of the British empire and the
young tnen and manhood of Ireland with
them.
But the Chronicle's correspondent is op
timistic and says: “Does their organiza
‘tiqn, though, mean civil war—that is to
'say,■ real pivil war—between two sections
‘of the community? That is the very last
‘thing in the minds of the Irish national
‘volunteers. Their position is explained
‘in the appeal to the people of Ireland
‘which they have just issued.” This is the
appeal referred to:—
Fellow-countrymen, the call to arms of
the Irish volunteers has been answered
in every quarter of Ireland. Our young
men have everywhere made common cause
and come together on the common meeting
ground for. .al] Irishmen. The national
army, the volunteers, are the nucleus of
a permanent defense force, an arm and
a possession of the whole nation, and the
necessary guardians of its liberties both
now and hereafter. It remains to com
plete the arming and equipment of the
volunteers. At this moment it' is the
urgent duty of every Irish man and wom
an to give, his or her aid to the arming
of the national defense force. There are
tens of thousands of persons in Ireland
each of whom could defray the expense
of equipping one volunteer, and who
should recognize that their country has
this claim upon them and that the claim is
urgent.
It is difficult for pacifists to extract any
reassurance from this document.' As to
the enemy it is vague enough, but all the
stress is on arms. The Chronicle says:
"Another prominent nationalist said yes
-‘terday at Limerick that the national vol
‘unteers were looking forward to the early
‘day when the national volunteers and
‘the Ulster volunteers, would join hands in
‘ths general interest of the country. This
•is the wish and the hope of the great ma
‘jority of Irish nationalists.” That may
have a pacific meaning or it may not. The
Chronicle's correspondent adds
The movement is becoming more im
portant and significant every day, and the
step taken by the organizers in making an
order against political demonstration bas
been received py nationalists with great
approval; and, in fact, paradoxical as it
may seem', the desire of the national vol
unteers is to join hands with the Ulster
volunteers, in. order to solve the Irish
problem. This is seen from the speeches
made at manv Irish nationalist volunteer
meetings to form corps cf the volunteers.
For instance, at a meeting at Loughguile,
in Antrim, of Irish nationalist volunteers.
L Walsh declared that Sir Edward Carson
had struck a most effective blow for Irish
freedom when he made it possible for
Irishmen to arm in defense of their coun
try. In effect, he said that Ireland's fate
must be decided by Irishmen, and not by
the way in which English people voted
at general elections. Mr Walsh conclud
ed his speech by saying that no. provisional
government would be set Up in hi* part
of the country. ; ■
This' last utterance, in an Ulster town, is
not precisely reassuring for peace. The
volunteers are called "the greatest politi
‘cal force in Ireland,” yet an official df the
organization told the Chronicle that "the
‘volunteers are nonpolitical and nonsec
‘tarian, and will remain so.”
Here we come close to the present feud.
John Redmond’s movement is honestly po
litical, seeking to attain its ends by le
gitimate constitutional means. Triumph
is in sight. Home rule is won, and the
only question left to settle is whether pro
testing Ulster shall be coerced into the na
tion now or after six years or left to come
in when ready. Redmond’s domination of
discordant elements has been a notable
political achievement, but the task must
be more difficult as men get to thinking
more of guns than of votes. The position
of the party which is working through
Parliament would be intolerable if it were
exposed to the dictation of an army; Red
mond is right in insisting that the control
of so formid ble a force should lie with
the Irish party, and if, as he says, 95 per
cent of the recruits are supporters of the
party and its policy, a firm stand now
would ma»e his position secure. Cohesion
and discipline have been the strength of
the Ulster volunteers, and if the national
ists are to arm at all they must show the
same qualities to avert disaster With
Redmond and his party in control, a cau
tious and far-sighted policy might be
looked for; if there is no such sober cen
tral control the danger of a clash would
he great.
Three citernatives are to be considered:
(1) Bett:«ment by consent, (2) home rule
as it stands, (3) exclusion of protesting
Ulster on terms which the nationalists re
fuii. In the first case there would be no
use for armed forces bn either side. In the
second case Ulster would presumably re
sist. but its coercion would be a matter
of imperial concern; to leave it to the na
tionalist volunteers would be to invite
Balkan conditions. In the third case Ulster
would have the support of Parliament,
army and fleet, and an attack upon it
would be preposterous. Therefore the
only apparent use for the organization is
for political effect in England, and that
is no doubt the consideration which led
John Redmond tardily to give it his sanc
tion. But just what that political effort
will be remains to be seen. It should, at
all events, impress upon Parliament the
urgent need of sinking purty differences
in the quest of an acceptable compromise.
The further warlike preparations go the
greater must be the danger of a clash
that might have disastrous consequences.
It Is to be hoped, therefore, that the na
tionalist leaders who have shown such
self-control will, also get and keep control
of their armed forces, if armed forces there
are to be.
THE TUMULT IN ITALY.
The news from Italy during the past
few days has been ugly, but thing* are not
half so black as they seem. None of the
riots taken singly was as violent as that
of last year in Milan; the remarkable
thing is the number and Variety of the dis
order* which have all at once swept over
the land. To judge from the number of
towns where trouble i* reported, the end
of Ml thing* is at hand. But thia is not
the ease. Most of the riots have been
trivial, and many of them have local cause*
While tbe situation is serious, it is by no
means as alarming as it was in South
Africa during the recent great strike, and
apparently at no point has there been such
desperate fighting as recently in Colorado.
Generally speaking, all the disturbances
have been the result of economic condi
tions and industrial unrest, but they have
taken various forms. For example, In
several towns on the east, coast of Sicily
a fortnight ago there were violent strikes
in the sulphur mines, due' to local condi
tions. On the mainland there were local
strikes in several towns, and on Sun
day, June 7, there was rioting at Ancona,
on the Adriatic coast, which had serious
consequences. The mayor was absent, and
his deputy appears not to have been spe
cially prompt or efficient. There were
clashes between the police and the mob,
in which a number of men were killed, and
the proletariat all over' the country was
stirred. On Thursday there were stormy
scenes in the Chamber of Deputies, during
which bitter insults were exchanged. In
Rome and in many other < ‘ies there were
sympathetic strikes and riots, taking on
special form according to the locality.
In Naples the “malavita" took a hand,
and invaded the Corso Garibaldi, the Piaz
za Principe Umberto, ‘ and’ the Rettifilo,
also attacking trains at tbe station. A
number of men were killed. At Rome there
was little fighting, but business was for
the most part suspended. In the great in
dustrial cities of the north, like Milan
and Turin, the disturbance took typical
form, the troops acting with their usual
self-restraint, so that few were killed, but
multitudes of rioters were arrested. 1500
at Milan alone. The most serious trouble
was in the northeastern part of Italy,
known as the Romagna, including Raven
na, Forli and Ferrara. This appears to
be a hotbed of anarchism, and the out
break here took oil a highly revolutionary
form, but on account of a strict censor
ship the details are not yet available.
Th:. Italy is not ripe for revolution ap
peared from the prompt and energetic
counter demonstrations, what we should
calh “law and order” meetings, that were
held wherever it was permitted; in a num
ber of cities the authorities forbade it for
fear of precipitating further violence.
The whole thing appears to have been un
premeditated, an accidental boiling over
of a pot which has been seething danger
ously ever since the war of conquest in
Tripoli, which to many of the radicals
was highly distasteful. The war, too.
led to economic stress which has provoked
strikes and riots independently of the agi
tators. Italy is carrying a heavy burden
of militarism, and with industrial growth
anarchism has spread >in the cities. This
lifting of the lid gave an ominous glimpse
at the perilous stuff which is accumulat
ing in modern industrial life, and of which
the United States has its share; if a rem
edy is not found the explosion will be
terrific, but the time is not yet, and in
Italy the worst is probably now over.
The critical point was the projected gen
eral railway strike, but 'this has happily
been given up, and tbe government is pre
paring to take whatever measures may
be necessary to calm this extraordinary
sudden flurry of industrial warfare.
RAILROADS AND PROSPERITY.
-v <11e;:
Mr VandeftlpV' Rhalysie of the bus
iness sitnntion,"' i iff a 6fh ’StHrhss ‘before’ the
New Y6rk staf^ btfifirers. reaches the con
clusion that the Chief drawback to “re
‘newed business activities" on an unpar
alleled scale lies in the “position of the
American railroads. It is not tariff re
vision downward, it is not the income
tax, it is not the prospect of more strin
gent antitrust legislation that compels
hesitation and breeds paralyzing doubt
of the future. It is the position of the
railroads that gives the most substantial
reasons for concern.
New England can appreciate the force
of Mr Vanderlip’s view. The worst blight
upon New England's prosperity is the
present condition of the railroad system
interlacing in these states in every direc
tion. The responsibility of bad manage
ment for this deplorable demoralization
need not now be emphasized, The chap
ter of New Haven is written, and it will
never be forgotten. Elsewhere in the
country, also, railroads have been vicious
ly mismanaged, first and last, and to that
mismanagement very much of what is
menacing in the railroad situation is due.
But saying that does not exhaust the
subject. Railroad policy in the United
States is to-day in a morass of muddle, of
which the hopeful feature is that it seems
to be a case of muddle abead toward
the ultimate unification of railroad con
trol. Light breaks when we hear the
United States supreme court proclaim the
principle of "one master, not many.” But
the actual state of things is something
like chaos. Mr Vanderlip pointed out the
cause in this passage:—
The’ railroads have been unfortunate
in having to meet two legislative theories
of quite opposite and unrelated charac
ter, and in having both of these theories
applied simultaneously. On the one side
there has been “the theory of Control
through the fixing of rates by commis
sion, tbe supervision of accounting and
the direction in the greatest detail of the
management; on the other side there has
been the theory of compelling competition
through ths prohibition of combinations
and by forbidding co-operative agree
ments. One or the other of these theories
may be right, bit both applied at the
same -time cannot be. The result of the
application of both of.- these, theories at
once has been to bring the railroads into
a most serious situation.
One set of federal laws treat* railroads
as if they were natural monopolies prop
erly subject to federal regulation and con
trol; another set of laws treats them
a* if they were a highly competitive busi
ness tn which any tendency toward the
combination of Competitive lines called
for severe penalties. The two sets of
laws swear at eaA other, and, they may be
come a palpable absurdity when they col
lide. although thS results of the collision -
may spread devastation far and -wide.
The enforcement of the federal anti
trust law against railroads bas now
reached *ueh an extreme that two Bystems
which, in the main, supplement each other,
rather than compete with each other must
be separated—a situation which exists to
day in New England. Instead of having
our railroad situation straightened out in
telligently by a commiseion of experts in
accordance with the economic interests of
this section, the railroad system of New
England must be torn apart to conform
' to a Jaw. as interpreted by the court*,
which has no proper application 'to sya
tems of »team trtmgporfation. The Repub
lican has no doubt that Attorney-General
Mcßeynolds is correct in his interpreta-
tion of tbe law: it has no donbt that he is
under the obligation of an oath to enforce
the law, as well as under the pressure of
au administration policy. The law being
what it is;;construed as it is by thesu
preme court, there is no escape from dis
solution according to law instead of eco
nomic need and plain common sense.
Where the grievance lies is against a, law
which imposes upon up thia kind of rail
road map-making.
Yet no political party, no prominent
party leader, no influential public man
ventures to demand that tbe railroads be
exempted from the antitrust law and be
relegated to the complete control of the
interstate commerce commission. .No one
at the hearings on the New Haven dis
solution, being held at the state-house, has
opened fire on the law which embodies an
antiquated theory of economics when ap
plied to common carriers. So long as the
public mind remains under the spell of
the antitrust act to this absurd degree,
railroads in America are doomed to have
hard sledding-rate increase or no rate
increase.
MOCKERY OF PLATFORMS.
The democratic party, throughout the
struggle in Congress over tolls repeal, has
been in a ridiculous, humiliating, discred
itable position not because of the neces
sary and righteous repudiation of the tolls
plank in the Baltimore platform, but be
cause the plafik had found its way into
the platform at all.
The republican senator from Connecti
cut, Mr Brandegee, was actually consid
erate and kind in saying that the Balti
more Co*nvention was “entrapped” into the
indorsement. It is certain that the eco
nomic principle of ship subsidies embodied
in the plank was contrary to the' party's
policy for many years. It id also estab
lished that not one delegate in a hundred
knew the exemption plank was in the
platform when the convention adopted it
during an uproar so great that few had
heard the man who read it. It is a fact
that this spring Senator Gore by marl
polled 856 of the Baltimore delegates and
found that 711 of them favored the repeal
bill, in spite of the platform declaration to
the country. But “entrapped” hardly cov
ers the case. There is more to be said.
Many planks get into platforms in pre
cisely the way this plank did—without
the least consideration of their import
by the great bulk of convention delegates.
Platforms are the work of a very small
set of men who retire to an upper story
somewhere and by a process of give and
take throw together things different fac
tions will presumably stand for. They
fight over the big things, arrange their
compromises and then little things, at the
time deemed perhaps of no great conse
quence by one or another, are allowed to
creep in. It is easy to understand bow
the tolls exemption plank got by at Balti
more. Mr O’Gorman shoved it in under
Mr Bryan's nose: and Mr Bryan at the
moment seeing no great issue in it,
but perhaps ■ a few votes, was will
ing to please Mr O’Gorman by mak
ing no protest. The lived and wilted con
vention; was ready to take whatever
Bryan and O ! Gorman could agree upon.
In a sense, there was no trickery in
the performance. Nobody was "en
'trapped.’’ - For that ;w»a: the usual way
of . doing -that sort of business, as
everybody knew. But that sort of
business it a discreditable business;
it is a mockery of political intelli
gence. All confidence in party platforms
is outraged when the confession must be
made that a party even unwittingly had
indorsed., something it did not believe in.
The experience in this case should be
burned into tbe consciousness of all par
ties to the end that similar embarrass
ments may not again arise to torment
party leaders.
THE EXEMPTION OF LABOR.
Constitutional objections to the exemp
tion of farmers’ organizations and labor
unions from the federal antitrust law
seem to vanish in the light of the Unit
ed States supreme court’s decision up
holding the antitrust law of Missouri
in the case of the International harvester
company. The exemption in the Missouri
law is unqualified and unmistakable. It
classifies so-called restraints of trade,
making some illegal and others legal. Ju
dicial opinion years ago was much against
exemption of this sort, and President
Roosevelt was doubtless guided by law
advisers who held to the earlier views
when. In 1908, he declared in a message
to Congress that the exemption of labor
organizations from antitrust legislation he
was then urging “would in all probability
‘make the bill unconstitutional.”
The supreme court is now less insistent
upon regarding labor as merely a com
modity. It sees more clearly than ever
before a distinction based on the facte
of human life between the seller of agri
cultural implements and the seller of a
day’s work. If a state c6uld not classify
restraints so as to apply to those who
sell goods and not to those who are en
gaged in labor pursuits, said Justice Mc-
Kenna for the supreme court, the state
would soon find itself in "sorry straits.”
Classification was proper Bo long as classi
fication was made with regard to the evil
to be cured. <
This decision does credit to the su
preme court as a tribunal of compre
hensive intelligence and freedom from
narrow legalistic restraints Upon-its rea
soning. Those who unmeasuredly de
nounce special treatment for labor organi
zations and farmers' associations in 'eg
islation. designed to regulate monopolies
and conspiracies in restraint of trade, as
a gross violation of the principle of equal
ity before the law now must confront the
United - States supreme court . The court
recognizes inherent differences that exist
in life as something that may properly
be reflected in law, while the champion*
of “equality” refuse to recognize them.
Judge George Gray, who ha* just re
signed from the United States circuit
bench at the age of 74, after a very honor
able career, has been interviewed on cer
tain question* of the day. He has no
lack of conservatism. But he approves
tlje labor clauses of the C)»yton .anti
trust bill, which has lately passed the
House- clauses which do not fully exempt
labor aitd farmers' organizations from, the
Sherman Jaw, but which do provide that
they shall not be held ,to ibe illegal com
binations in restraint of trade. If Judge
Gray had been a member of the supreme
court he would undoubtedly have indorsed
ths decision sustaining th* Missouri stat
ute.
OWNERSHIP OF BOSTON & MAINE
There is very significant side-stepping
in the railroad hearings at the state-house,
of the question whether the commonwealth
should go into the railroad business by pur.
chasing the New Haven's Boston and
Maine shares. Various persons are most
eager, apparently, that the state should
have the opportunity to buy and that it
should have reserved always the Oppor
tunity to buy, but not one of them comes
forward to say that the state ought to
buy, or that it must buy. Opinion is care
fully reserved, when the pinch comes over
actual ownership.
Where is the outspoken radical, having
a considerable following among the people,
who is ready to demand state ownership
itself right now? Charles Sumner Bird
does not "want to see the state purchase
‘the'stock and operate the road, if it can
■be helped, for I know how expensive and
‘unsatisfactory this might prove to be.”
Joseph Walker is not quite prepared to
say that now is the time to buy. or that
it would be wise ever to iniy. The social
ists are not being heard from, but it may
be doubted that they would advocate such
a step. Probably they know better.
What could the state of Massachusetts
do -with the Boston and Maine? Just
about nothing. It could never control the
action of New Hampshire, Vermont and
Maine, whose power to regulate Boston
and Maine business would be precisely
what it is to-day. But above all these
four states in authority would be the in
terstate commerce commission. Anyone
who imagines that Massachusetts would
profit much by owning an important inter
state railroad system should study the re
cent railroad decisions of the United States
supreme court in the Minnesota and the
Shreveport rate cases. The strong tend
ency of federal power, as guided by ths
court, is toward uniform national regula
tion and control of railroads in the United
States, regardless of the authority of the
states. Uniform national regulation is to
be supreme.
Federal regulation is not federal owner
ship, but a federal regulation that is para
mount and increasingly impatient with
state interference is now in plain sight.
The principle of one master, not many,
proclaimed by the supreme court last Mon
day, makes the idea of buying ownership
in the Boston find Maine for this common
wealth a chimerical scheme.
EMBASSADOR TO PARIS.
It is expensive busines* being American
embassador to France, but Congressman
Willihm G. Sharp of Ohio is described as
a "wealthy manufacturer” and presum
ably his private fortune is equal to the
strain. He is “entirely without diplomatic
‘experience,” and probably he cannot con
verse with facility and social ease in
French. But his predecessor. Embassador
Myron T. Herrick, had the same faults
when President Taft appointed him. The
last well-trained embassador this country
maintained at Paris was Henry White,
who was forced to resign. Since his re
tirement both the republican and the
democratic president have nominated
•‘amateurs.”
Senator Burton of Ohio thinks well
enough of Mr Sharp to promise his sup
port for tbe nomination; besides. Mr
Sharp has served in the House several
terms and the senators may know him
personally. There is evidently no chance
to cause another “Pindell of Peoria”
row, yet those who sigh, and perhaps beat
their bosoms, over the mediocrity of our
diplomatic service will note with chagrin
that Mr Sharp is utterly unknown abroad
and even “obscure” at home.
It is understood, however, that the sup
ply of millionaires in the demouratic
party whom the president would think it
appropriate and pleasant to honor with
a high diplomatic appointment, has run
alarmingly low. It has become exceed
ingly difficult to. find a democrat of abil
ity, fitness and finantial means willing
to sacrifice a part of his fortune playing
up to the embassadorship in a place like
Pari*. Mt McCombs would not take the
post even after he had married a rich
wife. Promoting meritorious person* in
the lower positions of our diplomatic serv
ice is out of the question, if they are not
•very wealthy; for they cannot afford to
rise so high on sudi small salaries.
But Congres* is not doing its share in
making the highest diplomatic posts avail
able to men of comparatively small
means. The Senate appropriations com
mittee has just cut out Of the diplomatic
bill items providing for the building, at
government expense, of embassy residences
and offices in several foreign capitals.
There can tie no diplomatic service such
as the critics demand, so long as Congress
resists making proper provision for the
housing of it abroad.
PRESIDENT AND “CONSPIRACY-”
The president has caught Mr Roosevelt’s
old distemper. There'* a conspiracy to de
press business in order to delay the Sup
plementary trust legislation. In taking
serious note of this charge concerning de
lay, Mr Wilson Monday got in line with
the progressive leader in the House, Victor
Murdock of Kansas, whose recent speech
on the trade commission bill contained a
terrific indictment of “our money over
lords" for always urging the postpone
ment of this sort of lawmaking in order
that there might be sufficient “deHbera
‘tion.” Said the progressive leader;— ,
The crying necessity of the hour, the
need of decent trade, tbe demand of hon-.
est competition, the rights of labor, the
exigency of the people, is, in this matter
of remedial legislation, expedition.
For delay is the darling device of onr
money overlords. They have gorged upon
it’ for 40 yiars and grown fat. Upon this
meat each day they have added to their
insolence, their brutality, their insatiable
hunger for more and irresponsible power.
They have bribed, stolen, perjured, de
bauched for delay. They have, in cynical
contempt for the law, in ecorn of the
nubile weal, plundered the public estate,
fed upon the substance of labor, taxed the
people, polluted the publie service, by
means of delay. They have tightened their
control of ration* corporation practices;
they have perverted the benefactions of
the principle of co operation; they have
di«tbrtbd the advantages of steam, elec
tricity. and of invention; they have preyed
Upon human life itself--all by the simple
instriimentality of delay. They have played
the right* Of the states against the nation,
thn nadM against the state, the decree of
thq court against the ediet of the Legis
lature, the Legislature against the court,
for delay.
Their creed la the divine right of vested
property, their quiet pqssesion and its
superior rights in the law, andtheir weap
on delay.
For half a eentury they have fenced with,
the common law, ■ with statutory, prohibi
tion,. w|th .’executive attack, with judicial
definition, always for delay; the delay
which is fastening on society the technics I
rights of ill-gotten property against the
day of Bociety s helplessness and despair.
Mr Murdock was fiercely against the
administration bills because they were not
nearly radical enough in destroying monop
oly. The president would noLuse Mr .Murr
dock’s language, but delay >g clearly no
more to his liking than it is to the Kansas
Btatesman himself.
The progressives will have the democrats
on the run in the fall campaign,; on the
trust issue, if Congress does not follow
tbe president's lead and at least enact at
this session the federal trade commistiou
bill substantially in the shape Senator
Newlands has now given to- it. The con
spiracy charge is rather thin, but the pres
ident and Mr Murdock seem -to harbor it
and Congress might well nail the “con
‘spirators’’ by putting something through
along the lines of that particular bill,
which is sure to be passed sometime.
SOCIAL DISSERVICE.
It is not possible to have too helpful a
disposition, but a disposition to help may
take a dubious form. If the forecastle,
should line up in Pinafore style and
eagerly offer to help the captain take the
sun s altitude at . noon, there would be
squalls. Like other good things, good
will needs to be. kept under control, and
good will mixed .with egotism may make
a very dangerous compound. The ideal Of
social service so much preached nowadays
is an ideal of the very highest sort, but
it needs to be tempered with modesty,
discretion and Common sense. Social serv
ice does not simply consist, as some fancy,
in changing something. Prove all things^
said Paul, hold fast that which is good.
That he had trouble with the overzealous
is indicated by his injunction “that ye
‘study to be quiet, and to do your own
‘business, and to work with your own
‘hands, as we have commanded you; that
'ye may walk honestly toward them that
‘are without, and that ye may have lack
‘of nothing.” This might not serve for an
inscription for a Bouck White church,
but it is good doctrine none the less, and
never more needed than now. “Consume
‘your own smoke” is a useful precept tor
the day; at times the best way to help is
not to hinder.
This is a point about which it is neces
sary to be quite frank, because many peo
ple have unfortunately got it into their
heads that democracy m^ans everybody
talking at once. This is a great mistake.
Excitability and overeagerness are not
friends but foes to democracy. There is no
better democrat than the quiet, slow-spok
en farmer at the plow or workman at the
bench, who does his work honestly, looks
after his family, pays his taxes, and chews
bis political cud. not saying much till elec
tihn day comes. He is none the Worse
citizen for not meddling, and on such a
foundation free government stands firm
and secure. Thore is no such firmhesi
or security where everybody itches to hav i
a hand in improving things. From thn t
it is but a step to crating change for the
sake of change, and then good-by not onl •
to peace and order b’ut'to popular'gotern- ■
ment. the very basis of which is a cer
tain coolness and self-restraint. Conserv
atism is wholesome and even necessary
as a foundation on which to build: with
out it reform is as futile and fugitive as
writing on the shifting sands. For steady
progress we must have the sober, tougb
minded people who “hold fast that which
•is good."
It would be wrong to try to damp in
the slightest degree the enthusiasm for
social service which is one of the hopeful
signs of the times. But the idea of social
service ought to be broadened a little.
Social service need not mean public serv
ice; it does not necessarily involve agita
tion, or getting a new law passed, or
speaking in public, or going to jail, or
martyrdom of any sort. The martyr like
the poet should be born and not made;
we suspect that the contagion of exam
ple makes martyrets just as it does poet
asters. We all honor the spirit of sac
rifice; it is bo fine a thing that it ought
to be ready even to sacrifice itself. For
example, when literature and art are over
done, the finest sacrifice for mediocrity
may be the sacrifice not of health and
midnight oil, but of ambition to elevate
art or letters. Subtraction may be as
good a service as addition, and an ap
preciative consumer sometimes is con
tributing more than an unnecessary pro
ducer.
It may be a public service, too. and a
hatd One. to hold the spirit r^f reform in
check a little. The demand for reformers
is no more unlimited than the demand
for poet*, and even a considerable talent
in that direction may not justify cultiva
tion if the current need for reform*
and reformers is already superabundantly
met. If we have not yet reached
that condition we are rather tending to
warfi it, and the number and diversity of
little social saviors is becoming rather
disconcerting. Here again it may be a
real social service to stand aside and re
duce by so much a competition which wa*
in danger of becoming detrimental. There
need be no fear, that helpfulness will be
deprived of an outlet by such a sacrifice;
a spirit of helpfulness cannot be hidden
under a bushel, and in the ordinary affairs
and relations of life the friendly disinter
ested spirit has ample opportunity—it in
every household one such rushlight burned
the country would flare like a beacon.
The sacrifice is a severe one for those
who have once tasted and relishqd tha
sweets of publicity, but the craving for
publicity, like the lust, for gain may hav<
to . yield to an earnest devotion to the
public welfare. The avenues to celebrity
in a democracy are not very many, and it
it not wholly fortunate that the quickest
and easiest route is by inventing or con
spicuously advocating a "cause.” For the
number of really meritorious and urgent
causes is not unlimited, is on the contrary
rather pitifully meager ip comparison
with the number of well-meaning people
who would like to be celebrated for well
doing. The result 1* the invention ot
cause* which are neither urgent nor meri
torious, and the pre»*itig of tho*e which
deoerve better treatment by »en**tional
method* likely to bring them into disre
pute. • '/"J '* , L '' ■ \ ■' ■' ■ “ '’ •’
No reform it the present moment, in
fact, seems more needed than the cultiva
tion of * sgner feeUpg shout publicity. „W|