Springfield weekly Republican. [volume], September 28, 1916, Page 2, Image 2

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

Image provided by: Boston Public Library

                
2
MR WILSON TO HIS CRITICS
It was a fighting speech on the re
fcent railroad crisis that President
Wilson delivered Saturday, and a
fighting speech was what the occa
sion called for. Whatever may be the
result of the election, Mr Wilson is
on the right side of this issue, broad
ly considered; the forward movement
Of society and labor’s relation to mod
ern industry will vindicate his posi
tion. Ten years from now Mr Wilson’s
place in the history of the social
progress of the American people will
fee enviable because of the fact that
he threw the whole influence of his
office for the principle of the eight
hour day and also asserted effectively
the principle that the public interest
Is paramount to private Interests in
a crisis 'which threatens “to cut so
*clety off from the necessary supplies
•which sustain life.”
Since the railroad strike settlement
kt Washington, we have been treated
to the spectacle in New York city of
substantially the same financial in
terests that backed the railroad ex
ecutives in demanding arbitration of
the basic eight-hour day at any
cost to the country, even to the
extent of passionately proclaiming
that the very principle of arbitration
was at stake —we have seen those
financial interests backing Mr Shonts
of the Interborough in his stubborn
assertion that there was "nothing to
Arbitrate." There were some things
that could not be arbitrated, in Mr
Bhonts’s opinion, and Wall street has
been backing him up. At the same
time, the unionists have been willing
to arbitrate. Such a square reversal
of the relative positions of capital
and labor concerning arbitration
throws a flood of light upon the un
derlying motives of the two sides in
labor disputes, when arbitration is on
a purely voluntary basis under the
law. It also suggests that if there are
’ Certain principles which capital can
not arbitrate, there may be certain
principles which labor cannot arbi
trate. What is sauce for the goose is
Bauce for the gander.
Among the things which labor usu
ally thinks it cannot afford to arbi
trate is the principle of unionism and
collective bargaining; another is the
principle of the shorter work day. It
Is easy to arbitrate the question
whether wages shall be $1.50 or $2
a day. An arbitration board would
probably decide for $1.75 a day and
both sides would usually prefer to
accept the judgment rather than
fight. But the principle of the shor
.ter work-day involves social and hu
manitarian questions, in addition to
purely economic questions. It in
volves the actual effect upon labor,
from the social, humanitarian and
educational point of view, of increased
time for things other than the tasks
of the shop, the factory, the mine and
the railway.
It is urged that the decision of
such a question cannot rest absolute
ly on the guesses or the social sym-
pathles of arbitrators who are likely
to be prejudiced one way or another
on the issue. Society and industry
are in a state of flux and only actual
experiment in these times can settle
such a question, beyond all possible
controversy. Every now and then the
controversy is settled by actual tests
In particular industries. Within a
year or two experiment has vindicat
ed the eight-hour day in this city. A
certain manufacturing company
granted the eight-hour day to its op
eratives and it is now admitted that
production is larger in the eight-hour
day than in the longer day that for
merly prevailed. Certain imponder
able human elements often come Into
play in the working out of such a
question which confound employers
and all others who think of labor as
they would think of a purely mechan
ical process.
In this sense. President Wilson
holds that an eight-hour day is
not arbitrable so much as ex
perimental and. in the case of the rail
roads. when a decision had to be
reached in order to prevent the paraly
sis of the nation's transportation fa
cilities. he urged the concession in
principle of the eight-hour day on an
experimental basis to determine its
cost. In many cases it does not cost
anything, much to the surprise of em
ployers who And their plants increasing
production. On railroads conditions
are peculiar, but the issue of a shorter
working day is certainly involved as
■well as the issue of wages. So Mr
Wilson asked the railroad executives.
"How do you know how much it will
•cost you?” In his speech, Saturday,
he proceeded with his account of the
affair as follows: —
You remember there was a case
decided by the supreme court of the
United States. It was known as the
80-cent gas case, where, by legislation
in the state of New York, 80 cents
was established as the charge for the
unit of the supply of gas. and the
law was contested upon the ground
that it was confiscatory, and there
fore unconstitutional. And when the
appeal reached the supreme court of
the United States it said: “Nobody
can tell until you try to manufacture
gas at 80 cents whether it is confisca
tory or not. Go ahead and manufac
ture gas and sell it for 80 cents, and
then if it proves impossible to conduct
your business upon that charge, come
back and discuss with us the confisca
tory character of this act.” And it
may be remarked in passing that the
company never went back to dis- 1
cuss it.
I said to the railroad executives:
"You are asking that the result of
the eight-hour day be predicted and
the prediction be arbitrated. You are
asking for an arbitration of a con
jecture. of an opinion, of a forecast
of the figures of experts based upon
an entirely different experience, and if
you were to ask me personally to ar
bitrate such a question I would say
I am not competent to arbitrate.”
We hold, however, that stronger
than this line of reasoning is the hard
fact that the railroad men had the
legal right to retuse to arbitrate, had
the legal right to strike, and would
unquestionably have struck to enforce
their demand; consequently, there
was no alternative in common sense
to the trial of the basic eight-hour
day if the public interest tn the pub
lic utilities of the nation was to be
{safeguarded as it should have been.
And that was the alternative which
Congress accepted, with no obstruc
tion by the republicans in the Senate
and with 70 republicans voting for the
measure as against 51 voting against
it in the House.
Mr Wilson in his speech made this
significant and telling statement: —
These men were dealing with one
another as if the only thing to settle
was between themselves, whereas, the
real thing to settle was what rights
had the hundred million people of the
United States? The business of gov
ernment is to see that no other or
ganization is as strong as itself, to
see that no body or group of men, no
matter what their private interest is.
may come into competition with the
authority of society, and the problem
which Congress, because of the late
ness of the session, has for a few
months postponco, is ibis problem: |
By what means are we going to oblige
persons who come to a controversy
like this to admit the public into the
partnership by wnich the thing is dis
cussed and decided?
Mr Wilson’s constructive program has
already been placed before Congress
and the country, and r. is still his
program. His critics in this business
would do well to think of something
besides carrying the election; they
would be well advised, if they object
to Mr Wilson's plan, to offer a better
one of their own.
FOR A CAPITALISTS’ PARTY?
In connection with Mr Hughes’s
continued attacks on the Adamson
eight-hour law for railroad men en
gaged in the operation of trains, one
of our most authoritative yet con
servative writers on economics may
profitably be consulted. In the second
volume of his "Principles of Econom
’ics,” edition of 1911, Prof Taussig of
Harvard university has this to say of
the eight-hour day:—
It makes not only for some leisure
and some enjoyment of life, but for
better intelligence and better charac
ter. The demand for a universal
eight-hour day is entitled to all sym
pathy and support. . . . It is a
goal which the laborers are right in
keeping ever before them and in press
ing for whenever favorable conditions
exist. The favored mechanics, selfish
and often obstructive to true progress
as they sometimes are, in this case at.
least set a good pace and offer a stim
ulating example to the rest. . . .
We may hope that . . . perhaps
another quarter-century will bring the
widespread adoption of the eight-hour
day.
Those who rail and sneer at Mr Wil
son for saying that "the preponderant
‘evidence of recent economic experi
‘ence spoke for the eight-hour day”
need to digest the significance of Prof
Taussig’s Indorsement of it over five
years ago.
But Mr Hughes now seeks adroitly,
to establish in the puulic mind the
position of the railroad press agents
during the past year that the de
mand of the railroad trammen for a
basic eight-hour day was nothing but
a demand for more wages. In his
speech at Springfield. 111. he said; "It
'is nothing more than a measure to
'fix wages and as a measure to fix
■wages it must be judged.” “The
‘phrase ‘eight-hour day’ is apparently
‘used to tickle the public car in order
‘to establish something quite differ
‘ent.” In taking this position so un
qualifiedly. Mr Hughes ias done the
most surprising thing ir his canvass
for the presidency; the fact probably
has a deep significance concerning the
real social consciousness and class'
prejudice of the man. lie has sud
denly revealed the underlying sym
pathies that possess him in relation
to problems of capital and labor.
John A. Fitch, a well-known in
vestigator of labor questions, pre
sents an excellent answer *o Mr
Hughes in the last number of the
Survey:—
Nevertheless, the “eight-hour law”
may be considered the correct desig
nation for the measure in question. It
is a recognition, in specific terms, by
Congress that eight hours is a reason
able basis not only of wages out of
work. It is recognized by everyone
that a day's work in railload service
cannot be the rigid, inflexible thing
that it may be In factory work. The
end of a day’s work in railway serv
ice must come when a terminal is
reached, and in the very nature of
things that time cannot be made to
conform to an invariaole rule It
was essential, therefore, that the law
should not fix ef.ffit hours as a maxi
mum. In the second place, the law
provides an incentive toward an
eight-hour day by making the longer
day more expensive. ... It is
reasonable to suppose that efforts
will be made to .-each Ine eight-hour
day standard and thus avoid all in
crease of cost.
Mr Hughes throws dust in the eyes
of the people in avoiding candid recog
nition of the fact that, in the case
of railroad trainmen, it is impos
sible to do more than fix a standard
or ideal day in the matter of hours of
labor, whether the day he an eight
hour day or a 10-hour day.
Discussing this point, the United
States Industrial commission, in its
report on industrial conudions. pub
lished in 1901 (volume 19, pages 763-
793) stated the case very clearly: —
On account of the nature of train
service, the nours of railroad em
ployes are necessarily irregular. A
certain distance must be covered be
fore the train :rew can be released,
and the time required may be short,
or. under exceptional circumstances,
may be exceedingly long. There is.
however, a verv serious tendency of
railroad managements co bring the
hours of trainmen within reasonable
limits, and the 10-hour day Is the
ideal standard established by agree
ment for such service.
That was written by a government
commission 15 years ago or more,
and since then ihe world has moved.
But, regarding even the 10-hour day,
which is excessively long, the United
States industrial commission referred
to It as only an “Ideal standard," that
is. as something that should be ad
hered to as closely as possible, not as
something that could be adhered to
with inflexible precision as a basis for
wages.
The United States industrial com
missisn. in that same report, said:
“Railroad labor, however, is undoubt
'6dly covered by the interstate powers
‘of Congress, and a federal law
■regulating the hours of labor would
■be constitutional." But, if Congress
were to adopt the position of Mr
Hughes, it would be impossible to fix
by law a standard or an ideal day, in
working hours, for railroad trainmen.
THE SPRINGFIELD WEEKLY REPUBLICAN: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1916
The only law on the subject before the
Adamson law wm an act forbidding
more than 16 hours of continuous
work; surely, no one would think of
considering 16 hours in train oper
ation a standard for a reasonable
day's labor. In fixing a standard
day’s work for railroad trainmen.
Congress must necessarily follow the
precedent of the Adamson law and fix
upon a certain number of hours as
the standard by which a day's wages
shall be computed.
Mr Hughes asks why other classes
of railroad employes have not been
i given an eight-hour day? Railroad
I trackmen would have been granted a
j shorter work day years ago by a re
; publican Congress and a republican
president if the following recom
mendation of the United States in
dustrial commission of 1901 had been
paid the least attention: —
Railway trackmen are the poorest
paid and hardest worked of all em
ployes. . . Both on their own
account and on account of the safety
of the public, the hours of labor of
these unorganized classes of railway
employes should be reduced to eight.
Mr Hughes deplores “the rule of
‘force” in legislation. What is a
strike but the rule of force sanc
tioned by law? The rule of force
prevails under the strike System.
Capital and labor are left by govern
ment to fight it out. What has Mr
Hughes’s party ever done to mitigate
the rule of force in labor disputes on
' Interstate railroads? The United
States Industrial commission made
this recommendation in 1901: —:
that Congress enact a code covering
all the conditions of employment of
railroad labor throughout the United
States. Such a code would have the
advantage of simplifying the condi
tions throughout the country, and by
the force of example would lead the
states, it is hoped, to adopt voluntarily
the code in cases where Congress
cannot properly intervene. This the
commission believes to be one of the
most important efforts in the labor
Interest to which the attention of
Congress can possibly be invited:
The code thus recommended for
railroad labor could have included not
only regulation of hours and inciden
tally of wages, but also regulation of
labor disputes in the direction of their
compulsory investigation or even the
complete prohibition of strikes on
railroads without at least due notice
to the authorities. Mr Hughes’s
party was in absolute control of the
government for a decade after that
recommendation was made; but in all
that time there was nothing doing.
Mr Hughes is deplorably, danger
ously wrong in saying that the Adam
son law is nothing but a wage-increase
law. He is equally in error in de
scribing the action of Congress as
nothing but a surrender to force; for
he ignores the vital public Interest in
having the strike prevented. So. too.
does he ignore the fact that no ar
bitration board could have reached
a sure conclusion as to the basic
eight-hour day without seeing the
thing actually tried out—and that is
what the Adamson law provides for.
The United States supreme court, in
the case of the 80-cent gas bill, refused
to hand down a decision as to wheth
er it was confiscatory until the 80-cent
rate had been actually tried by the
company.
As for the ultimate political bearings
of the issue, regardless of the result of
the approaching election, is not Mr
Hughes swiftly transforming the re
publican party into a capitalists’ party
by his treatment of this question? The
general effect of his campaigning is
to array him and his party against
the eight-hour day principle, in spite
of all his expostulations to the con
trary, and to identity republicanism
with reaction in the public mind. Wil
son is the progressive, Hughes the re
actionary. Where do the people stand?
A NEGLECTED ISSUE
—
The virtual disappearance of the ;
trust issue is one of the cu- r
riosities of the present campaign. !
In 1912 it was one of the is- 1
sues most strongly featured by I
Messrs Taft, Wilson and Roosevelt. It j
was a highly contentious question. Agi- I
tation during the Taft administration I
had been promoted by the govern-1
ment's prosecution of the United States |
steel corporation and the International
harvester company—the “good trusts”
of the period. George W. Perkins
had been Influential in founding the
progressive party because of his re
volt against the federal antitrust law
and its enforcement. In the maga
zines and newspapers and the cam
paign literature of the three parties a
larg.e amount of space, four years ago,
was devoted to the proper solution of
the problem of monopolistic combina
tions.
No such situation exists to-day. In
his speech of acceptance Candidate
Hughes spoke five lines —no more—
that can be Interpreted as bearing on
the trust and monopolies of the coun
try. "We have determined,” he said,
"to cut out. root and branch, monopo
'listlc practices, but we can do this
‘without hobbling enterprise or riar
‘rowing the scope of legitimate achieve
‘ment.” Mr Wilson could say that '
without being accused by an enemy
of having changed hfs mind; in fact.
Mr Wilson said much the same thing
throughout his 1912 campaign. In his
campaign tours Mr Hughes has main
tained a substantial silence regarding
the trust question, and no one else
refers to it on the republican Bide in a
way to arrest the attention of the
people. It appears that the trust is
sue, for this campaign at least, must
be classed with damaged goods. It is
not presentable by an opposition can
didate who desires to win.
This condition of affairs is the more
remarkable because there has been
Important legislation on the trust,
question during the Wilson adminis
tration—which, as everyone knows,
has been about the worst administra
tion in American history. If not in
the history of the world. The Wilson
administration passed the supplemen
tary antitrust act known as the Clay
ton law. Part of that legislation was
the creation of the federal trade com
mission, which has met incidentally
I the demand ot the national progressive
platform for “the establishment of .v
'strong federal administrative com
'mlssion of high standing that shall
'maintain permanent active super
‘vislon over industrial corporations
‘engaged in interstate commerce”
There are other features of the
new law which were fiercely de
nounced when the law was en
acted. Besides legislating on the
: subject, the administration has dealt
with It through executive action in
enforcing the laws. Several comblna-'
tlons deemed monopolistic have been
forced to entei- upon the process of dis
solution without a battle in the courts.
It is astounding that an administra
tion which could never do anything
right and whose continuance in power
would be an appalling national disas
ter should have so handled the trust
problem, so acute four years ago, that
to-day the Issue has virtually dropped
out of our politics. Here, obviously,
is another reason why Woodrow Wil
son should be overwhelmingly de
feated. A man of such singular
achievement can never be forgiven.
FIRST DUTY OF A PRESIDENT
A reader asks for the reprinting of
Oswald Garrison Villard’s depiction of
the change he says the presidency has
wrought in Woodrow Wilson. The ar
ticle appeared in the North American
Review, and has been reproduced with
qualifying omissions by the Boston
News Bureau, where our reader found .
it. We assume that Col Harvey will ;
not object to correct use of this I
matter He no doubt welcomes Mr
Villard’s present opinion of the presi
dent, for not so long ago the North
American Review was sarcastically
linking Mr Villard with Col House as
the two confidants of the occupant of
the White House. Mr Villard is an
extreme pacifist, so much so that he
asked Congress to reduce the army
rather than to increase it, and he has
seen less to favor in Mr Wilson since
the president declined to share the
almost fanatical opinions of his critic
on military affairs. That Is the ele
ment of human nature behind the ex
ploitation.
Nevertheless, it is an open secret
that President Wilson is of serious
mind and intent, and not to be cata
loged among the great army of those
who are called "good fellows.” He
has the defects of his qualities, like
the rest of us. It may be that he is
less accessible than when he was gov
ernor of New Jersey, and the reason
for that is not far to seek. At the
same time the army of citizens who
have shaken hands with the president
will testify to his kindly bearing and
interest in them. More yet has he
testified to this interest in his public
acts.
That Mr Wilson has been beset by
such an infinitude of problems is evi
dence that he needed time in
which to think them out.. That is
what the president meant when he
spoke of himself as having “a single
'track mind." The presidency is a
more perplexing job than a governor
ship. The historian of this pdmiijis
tration will have to record tliat the
head of it has made a mighty good
leader fer his party and an unusually
masterful and efficient president of the
United States. By his works more
than his lack of ready comradeship
must he be known and Judged. To
be hail-fellow-well-met presupposes a
considerable measure of leisure. After
all has been said is not the wonder
of the whole business where Mr Wil
son has found the time for his im
portant work? We ask much of our
presidents and that they be good mix
ers does not stand at the top of the
list of requirements. This president
deemed it essential to place respon
sibility for hearing applicants for of
fice upon the members of his cabinet
in order to reserve to himself time
for more important matters. The
necessity for instituting that measure
of relief has been made more manifest
than was considered possible when
that change was ordained in what had
hitherto been the method of presi
dents. Whether the shift has been
of advantage to the administration in
all cases Is another matter.
President Wilson has needed all the
time that he could secure, even at
the cost of being called "the least
'accessible and most secluded of all
‘our presidents." That he took 25
days in the period of the Lusitania
crisis in which to consider his public
duty was a wise reservation of re
sources, physical and mental. If was
called his vacation! As for the rest
there has been no failure on the pub
lic side in the business for which we
elect our presidents—official duties
have not been neglected nor slighted.
That the president failed to receive
a delegation of those who opposed in
creasing the army and navy looms
large in Mr Villard's mind, but It is
of course possible that the president
had gone over that whole ground,
viewed it from all angles, and felt his
time to be in demand to an extent
that precluded further listening. Such
a situation is conceivable and indeed
wholly probable. Perhaps that was
the stress which broke the patience
of Mr Villard and caused him to see
Mr Wilson as a sad and Isolated
figure.
So far as stated meetings with
newspaper men are concerned experi
enced correspondents in Washington
came to find them futile of result and
a waste of time on both sides, and so
dropped out. Such a culmination will
readily be understood by journalists
of long service who are familiar with
the fatuous questions which raw re
cruits are certain to put on such oc
casions. There are old hands in Wash
ington who do not seem to share Mr
Villard’s point of view regarding the
decline of those conferences.
That the president has a most at
tractive personal side is admitted by
this critic. The pressure of urgent
public questions has given him too llt-
Ne time in which to show It. Those
of us who have lived long In. this
world have come to recognize tha Im
possibility of making men over, and
we learn to accept them as they are,
I and in so far as they are accorqpllsh-
ing the work which has been given
them to do, and particularly when they
are performing public duties In a way
to command respect, we bid them god
speed, and turn to such molding of
our own characters as may bring them
nearer to the ideals which we cherish.
Work comes first in a well-ordered
scheme of public service. Upon the
choices which men make rest results,
and those of us who can retire into
ourselves and there settle the issues
|of life and of public duties have some
thing of that power for determining
issues that was so conspicuously ex
hibited in the person of Abraham Lin
coln. How much of his life was lived
apart, where he determined on his
course of action and then adhered to
it with that great determination which
was for the public advantage! To be
a "good mixer” is desirable, but to be
a great administrator and statesman
is the thing which we chiefly demand
of our presidents.
OUTLOOK IN HYPHEN TOWN
The happiest, most confident set of
politicians in the country are the
"Germany first” leaders. Their jubi
lation has considerable basis in fact.
Everything that has happened in our
politics since June 1 has been to their
liking. The nomination of Mr Hughes
pleased them mightily. The Maine
election, for which they magnanimous
ly took no credit, only intensified their
satisfaction. The defeat of Robert
। Bacon for the United States senator
ship in the New York republican pri
maries was exultantly hailed by the
German language press as the defeat
of the “loyal British.”
Out in Chicago, the republican pri
marines a few nights ago resulted in a
county ticket the nominees of which
are German-Americans In all but three
cases and one of those three is a
Swede. The capture of the republic
an party of Chicago by the German-
Americans, with the active aid of
Mayor Thompson’s machine, was vir
tually complete. When Mr Hughes
visited Chicago, the chairman of the
republican press committee appointed
to meet the candidate was the editor
of the Illinois Staats Zeitung, one of
the most zealous "Germany first” men
in the United States.
Mr Hughes is certainly meeting the
most sanguine expectations of these
people in his speeches. His Milwau
kee address last week caused the Mil
waukee Herold, a German-language
paper, to say: "Such a man means
■what he says and holds to what he
‘says. And we therefore rejoice in
‘his declaration, as coming from the
‘heart, and meaning just what the
'words declare, that he will stand for
Americanism.” Mr Hughes’s views
on "Americanism” also caused rapture
in New York, the German language
Herold of that city saying: "This dec
laration of an uncompromising Amer
'icanism by Mr Hughes will captivate
'the hearts of the German voters."
The Washington correspondent of
Editor Viereck's Fatherland already
has the election result expressed in
mathematical terms. He .figures that
50 per cent of Roosevelt’s 4,126,020
votes In 1912 "was cast by the Ger
’man-American element." This will
be solid for Hughes. Further com
putations lead to the conclusion that
“the votes of the German-Americans
‘and Austro-Hungarians are sufficient
‘to turn the tide one way or other,
‘even without the Irish, Swedish and
‘other racial units who are aligned
‘with them In the fight against a pro
‘English national policy by whomso
'ever fostered.”
It is a bright and joyous outlook,
and the cheer leaders are preparing
for election night. Hughes and victory.
WHAT WILL HE DO?
Efforts to find out what Mr Hughes
would have done had he been in Mr
Wilson’s place may as well be aban
doned. He will not tell. It Is more
important to discover, if possible, what
Mr Hughes will do in case he becomes
president of the United States.
When the stockholders of a corpo
ration are asked to turn out one man
agement and pub in another, they
rightly demand knowledge of what the
new management proposes to do. This
country does not belong to any politi
cal party; political parties are nothing
but agents of government responsible
So the whole people. The republican
national platform is very far from be
ing explicit enough to satisfy voters
who wish to know with a fair degree
of precision what, to expect from a re
publican administration. They must
now look to Mr Hughes for the en
lightenment they desire.
It is not enough luridly to picture
Mr Wilson as an incompetent, and a
disgrace to the country. The busi
ness ot electing a president does not
end with putting a man out of of
fice. Under Mr Wilson, the welfare
of the American people hag been con
served, even if the welfare of the
Belgian or the French or the British
or the Mexican people has not been
conserved. The constitution of the
United States was adopted, among
other things to "promote the general
'welfare” of the inhabitants of this
country, according to the preamble of
the constitution itself; and if, under
Mr Wilson's administration, the Amer
ican people have been kept out of
serious foreign complications in a pe
riod of world turmoil and upheaval;
if »hey have Increased their wealth
and commerce and financial prestige;
and if they have strengthened "the
'common defense" —another prime ob
ject for which the Union was formed—
then the presumption thab the na
tion, having suffered no real injury,
is safe under Mhe present ad
ministration should have great
weight in choosing between the
rival candidates. The presumption
Is so strong, in fact, that the people
may with greater insistence demand
tha» the republican candidate shall tell
them what he proposes to do If elect
ed to the presidency.
1, What Will you do, Mr Hughes,
concerning the railroad situation?
Have you any program for dealing
with labor disputes in interstate com-
merce? Do you Intend to demand the
repeal of the Adamson eight-hour law?
2. What will you do, Mr Hughes,
about federal Income and inheritance
taxes, in case your party undertakes
to revise the tariff upward?
3. What will you do, Mr Hughes,
about the' federal reserve banking sys
tem? Do you Intend to support an
effort in the interests of the New York
banka and financiers to transform the
system into a central bank such as
the late Senator Aldrich stood for?
4. What will you do, Mr Hughes,
about the seaman’s act and the new
federal shipping board?
5. What will you do, Mr Hughes,
about universal compulsory military
service, which was boldly advocated
by Mr Bacon in his canvass for the
republican senatorial nomination In
New York? Will you stand for it, or
not?
6. What will you do, Mr Hughes,
about the labor injunction clauses of
the Clayton act? Will you demand
their modification or repeal?
7. What will you do, Mr Hughes,
about China and dollar diplomacy and
Japanese “penetration" into the Chi
nese empire? Will you fight Japan,
if the Japanese undertake to establish
an Asiatic Monroe doctrine com
parable with our Monroe doctrine in
this hemisphere?
8. What will you dp, Mr Hughes,
about Mexico? Do you intend to use
the army to pos^ss the country, as
the United States possessed Cuba, the
Philippines and Haiti, and establish
a permanent or even temporary over
lordship over the whole Mexican peo
ple?
9. What will you do, Mr Hughes
about the European war? Will you
demand from Germany an immediate
and a full disavowal for the sinking
of the Lusitania? Or will you de
mand from Great Britain the im
mediate cessation of illegal acts con
nected with the blockade, the black
list and the mail censorship? Or will
you insist on an American embargo
upon munition shipments to the en
tente powers? Or will you protest
against the continued German occu
pation of Belgium?
Mr Hughes thus fer in his cam
paign has said nothing to show how
he would answer these questions, in
case he should become president of
the United States. Yet they are im
portant questions relating to the vital
things of government during the next
four years. The people have a right
to know just where to place Mr
Hughes with reference to them; and,
if he does not know what he would
do, the people are still entitled to
know that,
THE NEW LONDON CONFERENCE
From certain points of view, some
thing would be gained perhaps if the
conference of the American and Mex
ican commissioners at New London
were to be suspended until after the
presidential election, the understand
ing being that the status quo would
be preserved in the interval.
The fierceness of presidential politics
renders difficult the negotiations. The
republican half of the country now
seems to view the conference almost
with positive enmity, the obvious hope
of Mr Wilson's most active political
opponents being that the negotiations
may fail altogether. The president
can do nothing whatever in this con
nection without having it charged
that he acts from political motives and
his commissioners, excellent men as
they are, are subject to the same sort
of aspersion. The republican national
committee not infrequently attacks the
New London conference, or abuses the
Carranza government, through its
publicity bureau, in the effort to make
more trouble for Wilson,
The spectacle is amazing, in one
respect, for Mexico Is a foreign coun
try and the government's dealing
with Mexico is a part of our foreign
relations. For many years, previous
to this administration, republican
statesmen urged upon the democrats
the principle that partisan politics
should stop at the nation’s boundaries,
or at the water’s edge. Yet for three
years President Wilson has had to
contend with partisan malevolence,
culminating now, in the presidential
campaign, in a tempest of adverse
criticism, while he struggles with the
problem. If he were to have the
slightest success, it would not be ad
mitted, under the circumstances; nor
would there be lacking efforts to nulli
fy actual accomplishment for the bet
terment of the relations between the
two countries and the solution of the
border problem. For it is necessary
to destroy Wilson.
If It were possible to adjourn the
conference at New London until after
the election, the course to be taken
thereafter could at least be directed
in the light of the verdict at the
polls. What the people want done
with Mexico should appear in the re
sults of the election.
THE NEW YORK STRIKE
A great sympathetic strike of trade
unionists tn New York city, in support
of the unionized traction employes,
would be a calamity whose conse
quences might be serious in the ex
treme. Sympathetic strikes are very
seldom capable of justification: in this
case it seems impossible to accord
one’s approval tn view of the vast pub
lic Interest Involved. It is necessary,
however, to understand the difficult
situation that has arisen.
There has been wrongdoing on both
sides, In the opinion of the public
service commission of New York.
These troubles arose in July when a
strike took place on some surface lines
for the purpose of securing recognition
of the right of the employes to union
ize and recognition also of the prin
ciple ot collective bargaining. The
strike was won by the men on the
lines referred to. An agreement was
drawn up under the auspices of the
mayor and the public service commis
sion. and the principle of arbitration
was established The surface lines in
New York are owagd and managed
by the same Interests as the subway
and elevated lines, but they are tech
nically under a different corporate or
ganization. At that point these later
troubles began.
Technically speaking, the agreement
recognizing the union on the surface
lines did not extend to the subway
and elevated systems known as the
Interborough company. But there was
a verbal understanding between the
union leaders and General Manager
Hedley of the Interborough to the
effect that the principle of collective
bargaining and unionism should be
uniformly applied on all the systems.
In his interview with the union lead
ers, he declared: “I am the manager
‘for the Railways (green cars) and I
'am the manager for the Interborough.
‘I do not see how under God’s heavens
‘they (the directors) can give me one
'set of morals to live up to, and orders
‘to live up to on the Railways, and
‘another set for the Interborough."
The unionists accepted that statement
as a sufficient guaranty that the
growth of their union on the Inter
borough would not be antagonized,
and the public-service commission and
the mayor have recently taken the
view that the^acts were as above
stated.
General Manager Hedley, however,
seems to have been overruled by the
directors and owners. They deter
mined to obstruct the growth of the
Amalgamated union on the Inter
borough, and to that end they adroitly
started a backfire on unionism by
organizing a private union among the
Interborough employes. To those who
would Join this private union the
company offered an increase of wages
and a two-years’ contract of employ
ment. The move was very success
ful, apparently, for the private union
was Joined by many more employes
than had Joined the regular union,
which had but just entered the New
York field.
Private unions such as the Inter
borough organized are always regard
ed by regular trade unionists as dead
ly enemies because they are not in
dependent of the employers in the ex
ercise of their bargaining power. Real
unionism is believed to be impossible
under such conditions, and doubtless
that is the truth. In any event, the
effect on the regular unionists of the
formation of the private union with
the Individual two-year contracts on
the Interborough was infuriating, the
labor leaders believed that they had
been tricked by Genera! Manager
Hedley. They promptly called a strike
on all lines in violation o’ their agree
ment of August 6 to refer all differ
ences to arbitration. The public serv
ice commission, it will oe seen, sus
tains this version of the facts In the
following statement publlsned yester
day morning:—
The conclusion, therefore, after a
very careful consideration of the en
tire record in this matter is: That
the Interborough compauv breached a
verbal agreement made August 30 by
Mr Hedley for the company and Mr
Fridiger and Mr Fitzgerald for the
men on September 5. to arbitrate a
question which had arisen subsequent
to the making of that verbal contract;
This agreement was entirely distinct
from and Independent of the contract
of settlement of August 6. This verbal
agreement breached by the Inter
borough company, as already stated,
was not underwritten oy Chairman
Straus or the mayor, but was entered
into in the course of the conference of
August 30. Although the company
was in the wrong In this matter, it
is more unfortunate that the offices
of the mayor, or of the public serv
ice commission, or of both, were not
then invoked in place of resorting to
a strike.
The strike on the Interborough has
been a failure, the regular union
there being weak. The sympathy of
the various trade unions in New' York
with the traction strikers has obvious
ly been aroused by the breach ot the
verbal agreement on the part of the
Interborough company m its later
course, and unionists in genera! see
at stake in the struggle the principle
of unionism itself, which is the prin
ciple of collective bargaining. Hence
the present threat of widespread sym
pathetic strikes.
COUNT TISZA'S TRIUMPH
After a stormy debate the Hun
garian Diet Friday supported the
premier. Count Tisza, by voting down
the demand of the independents that
the delegates of Hungary and Austria
be convened for joint action. The
situation in the dual monarchy Is so
peculiar just now that It needs a
word of explanation. In their inter
nal affairs Austria and Hungary are
practically independent, but in for
eign matters they act together. Aus
tria-Hungary has no premier, but its
chief minister is the minister for for
eign affairs, now Baron Burian. a
Hungarian. Foreign affairs are in
bureaucratic hands except In so far as
the delegates of Austria and Hungary,
acting together, can control the min
istry.
But during the war political life
in Austria has been entirely sup
pressed. Germany has its Reichstag,
even Russia has Its Duma, but at
Vienna the Parliament has been ad
journed indefinitely. The effect of
this is to make Hungary helpless In
foreign affairs, except as It can con
trol Tisza, who is the real dictator,
Burian. like his predecessor, being
generally regarded as an instrument
rather than as a source of authority.
The bureaucrats can secretly do what
they like in imperial matters so long
as half of the constitutional machin
ery for giving the people a voice in
them does not function. Count Tisza
cleverly takes his stand on constitu
tional rights, urging that if Austria
suspends its political activity it is her
affair, and that Hungary should not
meddle because Hungarians would
jealously resent interference with the
Internal affairs of their state.
Meanwhile Hungary seethes with
political life, and feels that It Is
chained to a corpse. Nominally the
controversy centers about the blunders
of the government !n the conduct'of
the war and of diplomacy, notauly in
being taken by surprise by the Rus-
sian offensive and by Rumania’s ac
tion. Actually, the quarrel is much
deeper. In a mere vote of censure for
past mistakes there would be no great
significance; what the independents
challenge is the whole foreign policy
of the government.
It may appear at first sight some
what singular that foreign policy
should play so Important a part,
now that Rumania has shifted the
ground from diplomacy to arms. But
by "foreign policy” the independents
mean the German question; Count
Karolyf, one of the irrcconcilables,
asked downright whether the king of
Hungary—that is to say, the Aus
trian emperor—had become a vassal
of the German emperor, and while, of
course, Count Tisza’s answer was in
the negative, the question revealed the
true controversy which is marked by
general terms like “foreign affairs.”
One of the Tisza policies to which
the independents, and not merely the
Karolyi group, are most bitterly op
posed, Is the negotiation, now in prog
ress, of a 20-years’ economic arrange
ment. Hungary has its own very
clear-cut economic interests, and the
fierce Insistence on autonomy has an
economic foundation. Still, both na
tions are within the empire, and the
issue of foreign policies would not be
involved but for Count Tisza’s frank
admission that the agreement with
Austria for a long term of years was
essential as the basis for commercial
agreements with Germany and other
countries.
Here we come, then, to the burning
question of “central Europe," which
has been growing in importance with
the duration of the war. It antici
pated the Paris conference of the al
lies. but that made the imperialists
of the central powers the more in
sistent in putting through their own
plans. Austria Is quite helpless, and
Hungary, while more vociferous, ap
pears to have no power to resist man
ifest destiny. Hungary is not only
an Intensely political country, but a
country of keen business men. who
respect their German rivals, but do
not wish to be put in their power.
In the Tisza negotiations they fear
the beginnings of a customs union
which will work to their economic
disadvantage. How much similar pro
test there may be in Austria, and ob
servers there have reported opposi
tion, cannot be definitely known be
cause of the suppression of political
activity.
Whether under stress of war a
measure of such fundamental char
acter could be put through by bureau
crats and monarchical authority with
out giving the people of Austria and
Hungary a voice in the matter is yet
to be seen. But probably what the
protesting Hungarian independents
fear is that affairs may be carried so
far that Parliament can only ratify an
accomplished fact. The completeness
with which. the situation is controled
by the imperialist Count Tibia, one
of the half-dozen men or sb in Eu
rope most responsible for the war.
gives some ground for this apprehen
sion. With Hungary menaced by a
foreign invasion, it is impossible to
concentrate attention or io get a cool
judgment on far-reaching economic
and constitutional questions, and the
angry protests of the independents
are likely to end where they begun,
in mere talk. But when the war is'
done the veteran sabreur Count "baza
may have another duel or so to add
to his already long list. At present
he is too busy to fight.
THE NEW BRITISH ARMY
How the new British army com
pares with the forces of the military
nations on the continent is an im
portant question, but one which the
experts would probably not at pres
ent undertake to answer. The French .
at the Somme have gained more
ground, but It is admitted that the
British had the harder task, not only
because they had to fight up hill to the
ridge of the Bapaume [lateau, but
because on their front lay so many
of the key positions which had been
heavily fortified and were desperately
defend?d. At the beginning, too, the
French appeared to have an advantage
In taking their opponent somewhat by
surprise south of the Somme, while
north of the Ancre the defense was
so well organized that above Thlep
val the British got no start at all.
But it is the opinion of British critics
that this failure at the north, which
has retarded the advance, was also
due In part to mistakes which either
are not known, or to which the censor
does not permit more explicit refer
ence.
It seems highly probable, then, that
the British army, while well equipped,
full of energy and fighting with a
courage which German reports ac
knowledge, is not yet so reliable a ma
chine as its competitors. Apparently
Its best is as good as theirs, but it may
well be that there Is still some uneven
ness. due to causes which historians
may discuss at their leisure, but prob
ably including mistakes at critical^
moments by inadequately-trained sub
ordinate commanders. Under other
conditions such mistakes might just
turn the scale and lead to a crushing
defeat, but on this front liabilities are
limited like rewards, and a blunder
costing the lives of thousands may
not appreciably affect the general sit
uation. The test, therefore, cannot be
considered complete, but that the'
British in a general way come up to
the continental standard seems to be
admitted, and this rapid development
is one of the most important and far
reaching facts of the war. Few in
advance had credited its possibility.
AUTHORS’ TRADE UNION
The protest which a number «f
well-known writers make against pro
posed affiliation with the federation
of labor is somewhat tardy, but it
should be efficacious. Against full
membership the objections were obvi
ous. and the committee of writers
rightly rejects as one-sided and uni
fair the compromise by which the lit-