Chapter III (1)

But it is not such a misfortune to Mr. Bryan that he will never be President. Several millions of very respectable men share that lot with him. He is rich,—the only man that ever got rich doing reform work. In Bryan’s case, indeed, there has been no reform work,—just floods of talk about it.

He has friends everywhere, has no personal enemies, is of sanguine temperament, is rounding out into a comfortable fatness, has no bad habits, no gentlemanly vices, and is so unconsciously self-righteous in all that he does that he fails to realize what bad taste he displays when he introduces his wife’s name into a public speech and sets forth at length her qualifications for the position of “First Lady in the land.”

Personally, we bear Mr. Bryan no ill will and wish him no harm, but it is our deliberate opinion that his inordinate ambition for office and his mistakes as a leader have done more immense injury to the cause of reform. He destroyed the Populist party, he has wrecked the Democratic party, he has driven thousands of Conservative men into the Republican ranks, and thousands of radical Democrats and Populists to the Socialists.

His career has been rich in substantial rewards to Mr. Bryan himself, but, on the whole, it has been the bane of Jeffersonian democracy.

Foreign Missions

The action of the South Georgia Conference of the Methodist Church in voting $65,000 to Foreign Missions, last week, moves the _Jeffersonian_ to say another word upon that subject.

Some time ago, the New York _World_ published a statement to the effect that, out of every ninety dollars contributed in this country to the Foreign Mission fund, only one dollar reached the heathen. This is a sweeping arraignment of the honesty and efficiency of the management of the funds which we are not prepared to indorse.

Our criticism follows a different line. The question raised by the _Jeffersonian_ is this,—_What moral right have American Christians to leave their own poor_,—UNFED, UNCLOTHED AND UNREDEEMED,—_and to drain off into foreign lands millions upon millions of American dollars to feed and clothe and redeem the poor of those foreign lands?_

It is a most serious question, Brother.

You tell us, as per formula, that we are commanded to carry the Gospel to all the world. Granted. But where are we commanded to leave our own poverty-stricken wretches to die like poisoned rats in their holes, while we relieve the physical distress of the Chinese?

What moral right have we to deny the beggar at our gate, and to heed the plaint of the Chinese beggar?

One of our private correspondents a little while ago, wrote us that a certain preacher, whose attention he called to our statements on this subject, declared that said statements “_were misleading_.”

Wherein? They could not _mislead_. If what we have said about our foreign missionaries furnishing food, clothing, medicine, fuel, etc., to foreign “converts” is the truth, our people are entitled to know it.

If our statements are false, _we_ want to know it.

A very prominent and able Baptist minister,—who has long been a laborer in the Foreign Missions field,—and a well-known Methodist minister, who has been similarly engaged, _are responsible for the statements made by the Jeffersonian_.

One of these noble men said that the most discouraging thing about the Foreign Missions work was, that _when the rations to the “converts” were cut off, the convert lost interest in the Christian faith_.

What words could we employ that would arraign the system more severely?

* * * * *

The idea of the _Jeffersonian_ is that each nation of the world should take care of its own poor. We are not responsible for pauperism, vice and crime in China. There is no more reason why we should be taxed for _contributions to maintain a commissary_ in Pekin or Hong Kong than in Paris, Berlin or London. We leave to the French the task of providing for the Parisian poor; we don’t think of supplying food, raiment and medicine to Berlin paupers; and we consider it the duty of the English to provide for London outcasts. Why, then should we virtually coerce our American Christians into sending money to heathen lands for the purpose of relieving the physical distress of the heathen?

While penning this editorial, it occurred to us to glance at a New York exchange, for the purpose of noting _some contemporaneous instance of starvation, or of suicide because of hunger and lack of employment_. The newspapers of the North have been gruesomely full of many ghastly incidents of that kind.

Yes, _there it was_, page 3, of the N. Y. Evening Journal, of December 4th, 1908.

A white woman, sick and starving, and with a babe at her breast, fell exhausted on Fifth Avenue,—the home-street of the richest men the world has ever known. All of them are Christians. When prosecuted for their criminal methods of taking other people’s property away from them, they blandly perjure themselves, escape the feeble clutches of the law, turn up serenely at church, next Sunday, and contribute handsomely to Foreign Missions.

The woman who fell starving, on the street where these richest of men live, was named Mrs. Mary Schrumm. She was young, thinly dressed, and _had not tasted food for two days. The child was nearly famished, almost frozen and had acute bronchitis._ Her husband was out of work; an old woman with whom she had found shelter had been given notice to vacate; and Mrs. Schrumm had gone into the streets to seek refuge in some one of the charitable institutions. _She had been turned away from each of these that she could reach. She had begged that her babe, at least, might be taken in. No; the babe was sick, and_ THEY COULD NOT TAKE IN A SICK CHILD!

God! And we talk about _what the heathen need! The hardest-hearted heathen that Jehovah ever made are some of the seared hypocrites who call themselves Christians._

Denied everywhere, poor Mrs. Schrumm wandered about the streets, in the bitterly cold wind, until she fell, completely tired out.

_Then_, indeed, charity had to sit up and take notice. The starving woman was put into an ambulance, and carried to a hospital. _She_ will probably recover; her child will probably die.

Then, _what moral right_ have you to let such unfortunates as these _fall starving in_ YOUR _streets_, while you are sending _hundreds of millions of dollars abroad to feed, clothe, physic and make fires for the hungry, “thinly clad,” sick and shivering Chinese_?

Doesn’t your own “mother wit” tell you that _Foreign Missions could not consume such vast sums of money_, IF THE MISSIONARIES LIMITED THEMSELVES TO PREACHING THE GOSPEL!

Put on your think cap, son.

In the New York _World_ of December 5, 1908, is reported the case of George Schulze who shot himself to death, in spite of the pleadings of his wife and children, because he was out of work, had tried in vain to secure employment and was in despair.

If these were not typical cases, we would not dwell upon them. But they _are_ typical cases, _and you know it_.

Treasure Trove

The writer of the ballad which the Jeffersonian presents to its readers this month was Clara V. Dargan. She was born near Winnsboro, S. C., the daughter of Dr. K. S. Dargan, descendant of an old Virginia family of the highest standing. Her mother was a native Charlestonian of Huguenot blood, and from her the poetess inherited vivacity, social charm and a love for romance. The Dargan family was wealthy, but lost everything by the war. Miss Dargan published many poems and short prose stories in the periodicals of the time. In 1863, she was the literary editor of the “Edgefield Advertiser.”

One of her stories, “Philip, My Son,” was considered by so good an authority as Henry Timrod to be equal to any story published in “Blackwood’s.”

“Jean to Jamie” seems to us almost the perfection of a poem of that class. The pathos of it is so genuine, so unobtrusive and so deep that one feels, instinctively, that the lines of the poem ran from the heart of one who had suffered. Henry Timrod said of it, “The verse flows with the softness of a woman’s tears.” The poem, published in 1866, has long since been lost to current literature. Believing it to be a treasure that ought to be recovered, we reproduce it.

Jean to Jamie

What do you think now, Jamie,
What do you think now?
’Tis many a long year since we parted;
Do you still believe Jean honest-hearted—
Do you think so now?

You did think so once, Jamie,
In the blithe spring-time;
“There’s never a star in the blue sky
That’s half sae true as my Jamie,” quo’ I—
Do you mind the time?

We were happy then, Jamie,
Too happy, I fear;
Sae we kissed farewell at the cottage door—
I never hae seen you since at that door
This many a year.

For they told you lies, Jamie;
You believed them a’!
You, who had promised to trust me true
Before the whole world—what did you do?
You believed them a’!

When they called you fause, Jamie,
And argued it sair,
I flashed wi’ anger—I kindled wi’ scorn,
Less at you than at them; I was sae lorn,
I couldna do mair.

After a bit while, Jamie,—
After a while,
I heard a’ the cruel words you had said—
The cruel, hard words; sae I bowed my head—
Na tear—na smile—

And you took your letters, Jamie,
Gathered them a’,
And burnt them one by one in the fire,
And watched the bright blaze leaping higher—
Burnt ringlet and a’!

Then back to the world, Jamie,
Laughing went I;
There ne’er was a merrier laugh than mine;
What foot could outdance me—what eye outshine?
“Puir fool!” laughed I.

But I’m weary of mirth, Jamie,
’Tis hollowness a’;
And in these long years sin’ we were parted,
I fear I’m growing aye colder-hearted
Than you thought ava!

I hae many lovers, Jamie,
But I dinna care;
I canna abide a’ the nonsense they speak—
Yet I’d go on my knees o’er Arran’s gray peak
To see thee ance mair!

I long for you back, Jamie,
But that canna be;
I sit all alone by the ingle at e’en,
And think o’ those sad words: “It might have been”—
Yet never can be!

D’ye think o’ the past, Jamie?
D’ye think o’ it now?
’Twad be a bit comfort to know that ye did—
Oh, sair, would I greet to know that ye did,
My dear, dear Jamie!

The Passing of Lucy and Rollo

Gentle reader, did you ever steep your mind in one of those Sunday School hooks which were in circulation previous to our Civil War? If not, ransack your grandmother’s garret until you find a specimen of that Arcadian literature.

The little boy in those blessed books never quarrelled, never had a fight, never had dirty hands, and would have been inexpressibly shocked had he made a conversational slip in grammar. He was an intolerable angel in breeches—was this little boy of the Sunday school book. _He_ couldn’t “talk back,” nor handle slang, nor throw rocks, nor skin-the-cat, nor ride the billy-goat, nor tie things to a dog’s tail, nor put a pin in a chair for somebody to sit on. If the Bad Boy hit him in the stomach, he wept meekly, quoted a text, and went home to his mamma.

In common conversation, the language of this Good Boy was drawn from wells of English undefiled. Erasmus never used choicer words; and Chesterfield was not more perfect in manners, than was this detestable Good Boy.

Among youths of his own age, he was a miniature Socrates, washed and otherwise purified. Wisdom oozed from him in hateful streams. The sagacity of sages sat on him with uncanny ease.

When a grown man spoke to this Good Boy, the G. B. never replied until he had lifted his right hand and ejaculated “Oh, Sir!” After the salute and the “Oh, Sir,” came the response, which always did infinite credit to the manners, mind and heart of this outrageously Good Boy.

Life was an easy-going affair to the G. B. All things came his way. He was virtuous and he was happy. Nothing ever occurred to soil his clothes or tangle his hair. His nose never bled, he never bit his tongue, never struck his funny-bone, never mashed his thumb with the hammer, never had his drink to go the wrong way. He was never drowned while bathing in the pond, for the simple reason that he didn’t “go in” on the Sabbath. The Bad Boy “went in washing” on Sunday and was drowned, as a matter of course.

Daniel in the lion’s den was not safer amid the perils than was the Good Boy among the ills which are incident to boyhood. Past vicious bulls and snappish curs he walked serene and unharmed. Neither his gun, nor his pony ever kicked him; neither the wasp, nor the bee, nor the yellow-jacket ventured to sting him; nettles avoided his bare feet; no boil came to afflict his nose, nor stye to distort his eye. No limb of a tree ever broke under _him_, and gave him a nasty fall. He never tumbled into the creek, nor snagged his “pants,” nor sprained his ankle, nor cut his finger, nor bumped his head, nor walked against the edge of the door at night.

Nothing could happen to this insufferable Good Boy—nothing bad, I mean. _His_ shoes never blistered his heels, his hat never blew away, he never lost his hand-kerchief, never had a stone-bruise, never missed his lessons, never soiled his book, never played truant, and never ate anything which caused him to clap both hands to a certain place in front while he doubled up and howled.

Oh, a pink of perfection was this odious boy of the ante-bellum Sunday School books.

And next to him in comprehensive unbearableness was the little girl who was the counterpart of this little boy.

Her name was Lucy. Or, perhaps, Marielle. Or, for the sake of variety, Lucretia.

And what a portentous proposition in pantalettes she was, to be sure!

She talked just as exquisitely as did the Good Boy. Her selection of words was artistic, and her grammar immaculate. If William Pitt’s natural style was that of the “State Paper,” the colloquial standard of Lucy, Lucretia and Marielle was that of Madame de Stael.

She walked with primness; if she ran at all, it was with dignity; she did not giggle, did not romp, never made a mud pie, never pinched the Good Boy, and was such a formidable little thing, generally, that even the Bad Boy never snatched her bonnet. Such a thought as that of stealing a kiss from her never entered the head of _any_ boy, good, bad or indifferent.

This unearthly girl always seemed an impossibility to me, after I became a grown-up, until I chanced to read about the daughter of John Adams, second President of these United States. Mr. Adams married a stately woman whose name was Abigail. What else could you expect, if not that a girl born to John Adams and his wife, Abigail, would be a tremendous little girl from the very start? Her parents named _her_ Abigail,—as an additional guarantee against chewing gum, coca-cola, slang, and tomboyishness.

At the age of eighteen, we find Miss Abigail Adams writing about her father as though he were some Sphinx or Pyramid that she had been viewing. Please go slow, as you read what this young lady says of her own papa:

“I discover a thousand traits of softness, delicacy and sensibility in this excellent man’s character. How amiable, how respectable, how worthy of every token of my attention has this conduct rendered a parent, a father, to whom we feel due even a resignation of our opinions.”

Did you ever? Just try to put yourself at the view-point of a girl who could calmly sit down and analyze her father, as a naturalist would disjoint a rare beetle. Think of a daughter referring to her father as “_this excellent man_,” and classing him “_respectable_”! Think of a daughter dutifully conceding, in writing, that her dad is “worthy of my attention” and “even a resignation of our opinions.”

And, after all, she jumped from the sublime to the ridiculous by marrying a man named Smith!

But she has restored my confidence in the girl of the Sunday school book. Lucy _did_ appear on this planet in the flesh; and when she talked and wrote her style was that of little Abigail Adams. Marielle was not an impossibility, nor was Lucretia. Even that obnoxious Good Boy was true to life—if John Adams’ description of his son John Quincy is not too highly colored by paternal pride. After reading said paternal description I can understand how it was that, while Henry Clay made friends out of those whom he refused, John Quincy Adams made enemies by his manner in granting favors.

* * * * *

But no matter how many Lucys and Rollos existed prior to our War between the States, it would be mighty hard to find a Lucy or a Rollo now. Times have changed, manners have changed, types have changed. What is responsible for the bold-eyed girl—the girl of loose speech and loud manners? What is responsible for the irreverent boy—the boy of the cigarette and of _the look which undresses every handsome woman that he meets_? These are the boys that greet girls with a “Hello!” and a leer that should offend. These are the girls who shout “Hello!” to the boys, and who lie prone by the side of young men during a “straw-ride” at night. Are all such maidens the daughters of mothers who drink and gamble? Are all such youths the sons of men who have no morals? By no means. Our whole social and industrial situation has changed, and the people have changed with it.

Would that I could believe that our Public System is guiltless in this matter. Use your eyes as you pass a crowded academy and note the conditions which make against common decency—to say nothing of that deference and respect with which every properly trained boy should treat members of the other sex.

But there are causes deeper, more universal than the promiscuous mix-up in the Public Schools. The centripetal power of class legislation is drawing capital inward to the small centre of the Privileged. To the masses is left a constantly smaller proportion of the nation’s annual production of wealth. In turn, this law-made and abnormal condition of things over-crowds the cities. In fact, rural life has become so unattractive that the trend of population is _from the farm to the town_. Every village has its surplus—the men and boys, white and black, who have no visible means of support and who can not be persuaded to work. In every town is the girl who hardly knows why she’s there,—but she’s there.

And the pace-that-kills in the Chicagos and New Yorks is faithfully represented, on a small scale, in each of our towns. Don’t all of us know it? We do. But what is the remedy?

The temperance people believe that whiskey is at the bottom of the trouble. The church people believe that irreligion is the source of the evil. The school teacher believes that education will save the day.

But can not the student of human affairs see that the demoralization incident to four years of civil strife shook our entire social system like an earthquake? Did not the Spanish war light up,—luridly, vividly, horribly,—the almost universal corruption which had seized upon the body politic?

“Eat, drink and be merry—tomorrow we die.” When a nation rings with that cry, it is close to the whirlpool. “Let us have a good time!” The man drinks and makes much of his food; the woman drinks and thinks a deal about her eating; the boy drinks and knows the good dishes; the girl drinks and daintily scans the menu. “Hello!” shouts the dashing boy; “Hello!” answers the dashing girl, and off they hurry to some place where talk, songs, pictures and conduct are “up-to-date,”—_and in many and many a case the Hello couple are reeling hellward by midnight_.

Don’t we _know_ that our statute-book is the Iliad of our woes?

The few are wickedly rich while the many are helplessly poor, because the laws have been made _for the purpose of bringing about that very state of affairs_. There is a fierce struggle for existence which waxes more desperate every year. _Men fight each other for a job, with a ferocity like that of starving dogs fighting over a bone._ Girls are forced into positions where delicacy of feeling is trampled out and where it requires heroic courage to resist the tempters who are ever on her trail to pull her down.

Who does not know that the ten million dollars which one of our religious denominations recently sent abroad for Foreign Missions would be better employed if it were devoted to the breaking up of our hideous marketing of white women to lewd houses? Who does not feel that the hundreds of millions which our Government has spent in the Philippines had better have been left in the pockets of the taxpayers here at home? Who does not know that we ought to tremble for our future when we see how our law-makers have been the willing tools of those who ruin the millions of men and women, girls and boys, in order that a few hundreds of ravenous rascals like Rockefeller and Carnegie and Havemeyer and Ryan and Vanderbilt and Gould and Harriman shall each be richer than any king ever was?

Most of us _do_ know it. Some of us have long been trying to arouse the patient, victimized millions to a sense of their own wrongs. But it is an uphill work. Some despair, some scoff, some are callous, some won’t listen, some are timid, some are interested in keeping things as they are, some think it is God’s will that a favored few should reach the Paradise of unlimited riches while the unfavored multitudes sink into a hell of eternal wretchedness.

The lotus-eater’s plaint of “_Let us alone_” is to me as fearful as that reckless, creedless, madly selfish cry “_Let us eat, drink and be merry: tomorrow we die._”

Jay Gould contemptuously dismissed the suggestion that, some day, the American people might rise in arms against its swinish plutocracy. Said Jason, the cynical,

“_I could hire one-half of the people to shoot the other half._”

The man who said that was not more contemptuous of us than are the plutocrats who rule and rob us now. But perhaps what he said is the truth. They manage to keep us divided, about half and half, in the bloodless battle of ballots; perhaps, if it came to shooting they could divide us the same way.

New York _American_]

A Survey of the World

By Tom Dolan

Congress Reassembles—The President’s Message

The attention of the sixty-first Congress was naturally given first to the President’s annual document, which this year lost none of its usual length. In its entirety it is a plea for centralization of governmental authority in “the administration,” alleging that the nation cannot be “in peril from any man who derives authority from the people and who is from time to time compelled to give an account of its exercise to the people.” Mr. Roosevelt should know, and does know, however, that under our present manner of electing executives “the people” are as a mass too indifferent, or too ignorant, to demand such an accounting and until election by popular vote is incorporated as a principle of proceeding, he is virtually suggesting a monarchy, upheld by a special caste consisting of the holders of Federal office and the recipients of Administrative favor.

For the control of the trusts, he offers nothing new—nothing that he has not already woven into the fabric of “my policies.” He denounces the Sherman law, and believes in regulation and control by strong central authority.

On the question of the currency, he was pathetically weak and eagerly willing to leave it to his monetary commission to “propose a thoroughly good system which will do away with the existing defects,” and very guardedly admits that there was a “monetary disturbance in the fall of 1907 which immensely increased the difficulty of ordinary relief.”

On the labor question—a matter upon which Hamiltonians may much more safely grow expansive than those of finance—Mr. Roosevelt declared against child labor, for diminution of work on the part of women, and a general shortening of the hours of labor and for an inheritance tax that would help to equalize the burden of taxation which now falls so heavily upon those least able to bear it. He commended highly the intelligence of the labor vote, which refused to be “swung” as a unit for any candidate and took occasion to pay his respects to Mr. Taft as an ideal Judge. On protection to workingmen, Mr. Roosevelt displayed a sympathetic attitude which does him much credit. “When a workman is injured, he needs not an expensive and dreadful lawsuit, but the certainty of relief through immediate administrative action. No academic theory about ‘freedom of contract’ should be permitted to interfere with this movement.” He urged Congress to pass without delay an Employers’ Liability Law, which should serve as a model, covering the District of Columbia.

Among the old issues to which Mr. Roosevelt adverted were recommendations pertaining to the preservation of forests and the encouragement of industrial education. The Philippine policy is to continue and independence is promised so indefinitely that it is apparent that no voluntary, relinquishment is ever intended. Both the Parcels Post and Postal Savings Banks were favored, the former being strongly urged.

Results—not the sinking of money for no adequate return—was stressed as to inland waterways. Considerations in reference to public health came in for a word, and the Pure Food Law was lauded in superlative terms. The President advocated increased appropriations for educational departments and for increasing the “now totally inadequate pay of our judges.”

Mr. Roosevelt advises abandonment of the idea of combining New Mexico and Arizona into one State, and suggests that they each be given independent Statehood.

He averred that the nation’s foreign policy is “based on the theory that right must be done between nations as between individuals.” This is a specimen of “speaking softly.” The “Big Stick” follows almost immediately in the almost frantic state of mind he seems to be in concerning the needs for a great army and navy. Even the small boys ought to be trained in rifle practice! If he had added the hope that small girls would be taught to mould bullets and scrape lint, he would have been patriotically sublime!

That portion of his message which demands that members of legislative branch of the government be prosecuted as are those in the executive, and his sneer at Congress as being afraid of the Secret Service has created intense excitement in both houses and the language used in the message may be totally expunged from the records. Both Democrats and Republicans concur in the disposition to ignore matters of party and act in this matter, casting a stigma upon them all, as a whole.

Mr. Roosevelt’s bold assertion that the Panama Canal is a model for all work of that kind will meet many challengers. Philippe Bunau-Varilla, formerly Panama minister to the United States, has just issued a statement declaring that the Canal will cost $280,000,000 and that the plan now being carried out, owing to the dangers from the Gatun Dam, (which has already shown itself unreliable) “will result almost surely in the greatest disaster in the history of public undertakings.”

The President’s message, altogether, is like the President himself: commendable in some respects, partisan to a degree and strong in language rather than logic.

Reforming the House of Lords

Someone has said that every twentieth Englishman is a genius and the balance dolts, or something of that tenor. The Special committee of the House of Lords, in its report recommending a radical change in that body, seems actuated by a desire to retain as many of the twentieth type as possible and eliminate the rest.

At present, this august body contains 618 members, consisting of the royal princes, the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, two dozen minor bishops, the English peers and those Scotch and Irish peers who have been elected by their fellows to represent the nobility of these respective countries.

The committee each of the colonies send elective peers; that the 24 bishops elect one-third of their number to the Lords at each Parliament. The Archbishops are to remain permanent features and about 130 hereditary peers are to be retained, including such as have held the position of Cabinet minister, or of Governor-General of Canada, or Viceroy of India or have enjoyed high positions in the army or navy; and all who have served for twenty years in the House of Commons. Five judges are to be added as “law lords” and of the remaining number 200 are to be elected as representative peers.

By this selective, as well as elective, method, the fittest in brains, skill and ability would survive. It is equally probable, however, that, so far as broad, progressive policies are concerned, a House of Lords so made up would be even a greater handicap to the popular will than as it stands today. The average Lord now accepts his seat therein with that nonchalance which characterizes his attitude toward those other favors of fortune which are his by birth. He feels no added pride and seldom any real obligation to interest himself in measures that come before the House. While he is an obstructionist, it is after a rather passive fashion. To change this so as to make a seat in the galaxy of Lords a prize to be contested for, while limiting the eligibles to the race in the arbitrary manner proposed, would inevitably mean a powerful governing body, supersaturated with class-consciousness and hyper-sensitive to the faintest breath against its own aristocratic dominance. The reactionaries would entrench themselves by electing the most brilliant men of their own views. The lonely members from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa would have slight influence in shaping the destiny of the Empire as a whole and none as to England’s domestic affairs. To public opinion, then, as now, the House of Lords would be almost impervious. How, indeed, can any set of men taught to regard themselves, from infancy, as superior beings, be affected by the ideas of the plebeians? They have always assumed their class to be the natural governor and guardian of the hoi polloi. If the H. P. doesn’t thrive, it’s not the fault of the nobility.

It is no wonder that the House of Lords itself should be shamed over the survival of a caste system which permits even an idiot, born to the purple, to share the honors and responsibilities of membership in the highest assembly of their government, but even those apologists who maintain that the Britisher of rank feels obligations to humanity as does no other public man must take fright at the proposed concentration of power the new plan would insure. Certes, after many years of thwarted hopes for bettering of general conditions, the patient English people could only rise, in holy wrath, and abolish the House of Lords altogether. And, as a real and permanent reform measure, why don’t they do it now?

The German Incident Closed

“The toot of the Teuton is tootin’ no more,
All sober sits Berlin, beside the wild Spree;”

The words of this classic were never more apropos. The ebullition of German indignation over their Kaiser’s indiscreet interview, published in the London Daily Telegraph recently, the salient features of which were summarized in the December Jeffersonian, has subsided and the hard words, as proverbial, have “broken no bones.” That something drastic should be done to prevent such outbreaks in future, as well as to reprimand the “Great War Lord” for the unfortunate garrulity, was the generally held, resentful opinion; but _doing_ it, was another matter, unless the mincing of words between the Emperor and his Imperial Chancellor could so be construed. After their meeting for the purpose of discussing the matter, Von Bulow announced to the Reichstag that he was convinced the Kaiser would hereafter “observe that reserve, even in private conversations, which is equally indispensable in the interest of a uniform policy, and for the authority of the Crown.” This assurance was further bolstered by an official publication that Emperor William “approved this statement” and “gave Prince Bulow the assurance of his continued confidence.” This pacification the Reichstag was apparently glad to accept, in lieu of a constitutional guarantee of a check upon the Kaiser. During the national hysteria, when all were alike guilty of lese-majeste, it was safe to join the popular clamor. In his official capacity, no member of the Reichstag seemed bold enough to attempt to storm the fortress of “Divine Right.” It would have required a now impossible unification of opposing forces in that body, under leadership fearless of the consequences to self, to have magnified the disturbance into a real revolution in the German government. So, on all sides, there was a refluencing tide of displeasure—but the water-mark will remain for many a day to show that patience has its limits even in a people of almost unexampled docility. And, after having enjoyed a very carnival of free speech, they will never again submit to the gagging which has heretofore obtained.

Whether the Kaiser feels the humiliation accredited to him or not, is rather doubtful. At any rate, he viewed the storm with superb outward indifference, causing it to be understood, while he was enjoying himself on a hunting trip with the heir to the Austrian throne, that he was “heedless of the exaggerations of public criticism which he regarded as incorrect.” He is still The State—chance confidences with interviewers notwithstanding. But his subjects may not be quite so passive as before.

Events in China

One of the strangest, strongest characters in history passed from the stage when the Dowager Empress of China, best known to us as Tsi An, yielded to Death—her only conqueror—some time in November last. Born a slave, the story of how her wit, beauty, determination and utter unscrupulousness placed an empire boasting at least 400,000,000 subjects at her feet, is well known. For fifty years she reigned an absolute despot, while other nations rose and fell, maps were changed, the tide of Occidental civilization began to beat down the ancient barriers of her realm. Knowing that the summons had come to her, did she yet stretch out her still powerful hand and remove the weakling Emperor, whose demise preceded her own by so short a time? A physical wreck—a virtual prisoner and perhaps the victim of some brain stupefying drug, there were still dangers to be feared to the dynasty she so long upheld, and all her record shows she would not have hesitated at any step necessary to preserve the reign of the Manchus and repel the efforts which reformers might make, through Tsai-ti’ien, to hasten forward a foreign type of government. Much evil is said of the Dowager Empress—and much evil perhaps she did, according to some standards; yet she selected her ministers with some wisdom and can scarcely be censured for refusing to let herself and the Chinese masses—both intensely conservative—be harried into “reforms” for which they were unprepared. The national and racial pride of such highly informed Chinese as had received not only the education appropriate to their class at home, but who had enjoyed foreign advantages, is in nowise typical—and it must be remembered that Tsi An was dealing with “teeming millions” indeed. She was not stubbornly unprogressive, as various Imperial edicts issued within the past decade demonstrated. Indeed, it was not long since that one assurance was given that a Constitution would be granted within nine years.

Prince Chun—named recently as regent, will link the ideas and methods of the ancient Pure Dynasty with those which must prevail long ere little Pu Yi, his baby Emperor, who toddled into the Manchu succession the other day, can take the reins of government for himself. The people have accepted the tiny monarch designed to continue the present dynasty with no ill will. Chinese discontent has been constant for lo! these centuries, for the Manchus are a foreign Mongol race, but the almost simultaneous deaths of the nominal ruler and his iron-willed aunt, and the installation of a three-year-old as puppet king, made comparatively slight impression. Indeed, it is not likely that all China knows even yet that there has been any change, so slowly does news travel in some parts thereof. Under such torpid conditions, there may be uprisings against Viceroys in certain provinces, but anything like a general revolution will not in many years threaten the peace of the empire. The emancipation of China will come through enlightened rulers; or be deferred by intrigue within the Court. Three uprisings have taken place against the Manchu rule, but they were all before foreign interests and influence had intervened to give the yellow race a common cause against white aggression and patriotic Chinamen and Manchus will prefer a government by all the people rather than a mere change in the throne. Unless signs speedily fail, no real “crisis” is imminent.

New York _World_]

The Japanese Alliance and Elihu Root

“The people of the United States hold for Japan a peculiar feeling of regard and friendship” wrote Theodore Roosevelt after the visit to himself and Elihu Root of Baron Kogoro Takahira, Japanese Ambassador, last September. After much that has seemed unnecessarily subterranean in the negotiations between Takahira and the Secretary of State, admissions have been wormed from official sources that these gentlemen have consummated a pact that is variously regarded as a miracle of deft diplomacy; a dangerous entangling alliance or as a farcical declaration of non-binding intentions.

Subjected to examination, the “agreement” covers the following main points, stated in brief:

A mutual wish to “encourage the free and peaceful development of their commerce in the Pacific.”

Since the imperialistic idea is that peace is best preserved by being prepared for war, this “peaceful development” inevitably means to the United States a vastly increased naval burden. No less if Japan be honest than if she be insincere.

The second article declares for the maintenance of the existing status quo and the “defense of the principle of equal opportunity for commerce and industry _in China_.”

Has the Chinese boycott of Japanese goods anything to do with this? Takahira or Marquis Katsura, Japanese premier, please answer.

The third article obligates each nation to respect the territorial possessions in the Pacific of the other.

What territorial possessions has Uncle Sam save the Philippines, whose loss would be a good riddance?

The fourth article is nothing more than an elaboration of the second.

The fifth article reveals the purpose, the strength and the danger, of the understanding in that it pledges each government, should the present regulations in the Pacific be disturbed in anywise, “or the principle of equal opportunity, as above defined” be threatened, “to communicate with each other for the purpose of arriving at a mutual understanding with regard to the measures they may consider it useful to take.”

Realizing that no treaty outright could be made without Senatorial indorsement and that this would mean a departure from all American tradition and policy, Elihu Root has framed a skillful document which creates a binding promise to consult Japan in any issue that may arise, while it escapes the odium that would attach to an actual alliance now. The real alliance would be precipitated whenever emergency, real or seeming, made it easily and logically possible to invite the conference “with regard to the measures they may consider it useful to take.” It ties this American Republic to an Asiatic despotism in a manner both unseemly and unnecessary. Nothing is gained that we did not have and the sacrifice of our best traditions is saddening.

* * * * *

It is not so much the complications that are to be feared, even though Russia also fronts the Pacific; even though England and China have doubtless concluded an alliance of their own and even though other world powers have interests in the Orient which they jealously guard. Australia has long viewed Japan with doubt and aversion and the news of the step taken by the United States will probably shatter a real friendship, based upon white blood and mutual ideals, that could have been cemented between that independent colony and our government. Even though the agreement had no untoward consequence, it is a melancholy fact that the American people have surrendered their constitutional right to govern themselves or control their policies as to other nations. Mr. Root has formed an alliance binding in fact,—and evading, by subterfuge, any terms upon which the Senate could base an action.

In this, Mr. Root has again shown his famous sleight-of-hand performance, “Now you see it and now you don’t!” The intention to exploit China, by peaceful means, if possible, but to exploit, is clear; as is the understanding that Korea and the Philippines are to be left to their respective masters. Yet, scan the treaty again and it appears beautifully benevolent. It is indeed a piece of handiwork of which a corporation henchman may be proud as it more than sustains his reputation for ability to advise his clients how to make illegal moves without breaking the law. In the more elegant language of William C. Whitney, of New York, who was familiar with the promotion of divers deals: “I have had many lawyers tell me what we could not do, and what the law forbade. Elihu Root is the first Lawyer I ever had who could always tell me how to do legally what we wanted to do.”

Baltimore _Sun_]

Such is the record of the man who is to succeed Thomas C. Platt, as Senator from New York, Timothy L. Woodruff having been forced gracefully to renounce his claims. It will be a relief to get rid of the disgusting septuagenarian, Platt; but is a profound pity his successor should not be a man in whom the people have confidence. Root has always been a wily corporation lawyer; he has just completed an alliance in contravention of the spirit of the Constitution and is being elevated to the Senate through Federal patronage.

He may serve his country well—but the leopard will have to change a good many of his spots.

The Standard Oil Inquiry

“It was a bad year for the trusts,” wrote Edward Sherwood Meade, Professor of finance in the University of Pennsylvania, at the close of 1907. In support of his comment, Prof. Meade cited the $29,000,000 fine levied against the Standard Oil, of Indiana, by Judge K. M. Landis, and the proceedings instituted to dissolve the Oil and Tobacco trusts. As is well known, Judge Grosscup, of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, reversed Judge Landis on technicalities and the Company was saved from the imposition of the fine through what was universally execrated as a gross miscarriage of justice. Attorney-General Bonaparte at the time expressed himself freely in demanding of Congress the enactment of “a more comprehensive law permitting appeals by the Government in criminal cases,” instead of the present statutes which “give to the wealthy defendants in such cases an unfair advantage.” So 1907 was not such a bad year for the Standard Oil,—but a most profitable one, as the favor extended it in the Indiana suit enabled the stock of the Company to soar to nearly 700 forthwith.

The proceedings in the latter part of 1908 by the Government to dissolve the Standard Oil are the most important ever instituted against this odious monopoly. It is almost incredible that, after 20 years of immunity, John D. Rockefeller should be forced to “show cause” why he should no longer be allowed to pursue his taciturn, undisputed spoliations. Frank B. Kellog, champion “trust-buster” has charge of the investigations which thus far have presented something the appearance of opera bouffe. The figures juggled with are so enormous, and the “forgetfulness” of Rockefeller, Archbold and other testifiers such conspicuous examples of humorous insolence, that the public mind is unprepared to hope for a satisfactory outcome to the investigation. The present administration has but a couple of months more in which to make its denunciations against the Standard Oil effective, after years of apparently righteous wrath and no one is greatly to be blamed for adopting a cynical attitude as to the expected result.

* * * * *

It _has_ been a bad year, this closing 1908, for the Tobacco folk. The victory of the tobacco growers of the Burley district of Kentucky early in December over the American Tobacco Company proves what a determined stand may accomplish on the part of the producer, without entering the Courts at all. It is safe to say that this Christmas will have been one of the happiest ever spent by the farmers of Kentucky, among whom some $20,000,000 will be circulating for tobacco grown and held over, some of it, for nearly two years. It will make for a peace and good-will in very truth, for the “night-riding” is considered at an end.

* * * * *

Capitulation to the tobacco growers of a limited section, however, is the least of the American Tobacco Company’s troubles just now, it having been declared, in suit brought by the government for its dissolution, to be a “combination in restraint of trade” which is amenable to the provisions of the Sherman Act of July 2, 1890. Appeal from this decision is being taken to the Supreme Court and upon the result of this “last resort” will hinge all that is vital in reference to the ability of the government to control the various kinds of industrial combinations engaged in inter-state traffic.

Judge Lacombe, in voicing the majority opinion of his Court, observes that: “By insensible degrees, under the operation of many causes, business, manufacturing and trading alike, has more and more developed a tendency towards larger aggregations of capital and more extensive combinations of individual enterprise. It is contended that, under existing conditions, in that way only can production be increased and cheapened, stability in reasonable prices secured and industrial progress assured. But every aggregation of individuals or of corporations, formerly independent, immediately upon its formation terminates an existing competition; whether or not some other competition may subsequently arise. The Act, as above construed, prohibits every contract or combination in restraint of competition. What benefits have come from this combination, or from others complained of, it is not material to inquire, nor need subsequent business methods be considered, nor the effects on production or prices.”

Judge Noyes, who agreed with Judge Lacombe, says, in addition: “It is of much importance to many people at the present time whether the defendants have entered into an unlawful combination. It is OF THE MOST MOMENTOUS IMPORTANCE TO ALL THE PEOPLE FOR ALL THE TIME WHETHER THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT HAS POWER TO REACH INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS DEALING ACROSS STATE LINES.”

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Ward took the position that the purposes of the defendants “should not be made to depend upon occasional illegal or oppressive acts, but must be collected on their conduct as a whole.” That they strove “to increase their business and that their great success is a natural growth resulting from industry, intelligence and economy, doubtless largely helped by the volume of business and the great capital at command.”

What view will the Supreme Court take? That “restraint of trade” _is_ “restraint of trade” or that that it is _not_ “restraint of trade” if only a few laws are broken, only a few competitors hurt and if defendants are not suffering for want of money?

Haytian Revolution

Amid a fanfare of banjos, a rattling of “de bones” and the patting of the Juba, General Simon entered the Presidential Palace at Port-au-Prince, capitol and chief city of Hayti, early in December, thus triumphantly concluding a decisive rebellion during which Nord Alexis, recent dictator, was forced to flee for refuge to a French vessel. Simon’s election to the Presidency by the National Assembly will follow, as a matter of mere detail, providing neither General Firman, General Fouchard nor other “General” of opposing armies which contain no privates at all, pulls off another revolution before breakfast. This is a fearsome possibility, though, inasmuch as the countries to which these heroes may be induced to repair as ministers are limited; and the aspirants for the dictatorship are unlimited; besides, there may be a crop of the deposed ministers wending their way homeward to hatch up more plots—and how may all be pacified? Moreover, it had been six long, weary years since Hayti had any revolution to speak of and the appetite of the Black Republic for such diversions is not easily appeased. Serpent worship may pall and the charm of Voodoo rites wax monotonous. A chance to burn and pillage now and then helps amazingly to relieve the dulness of the island.

Hayti continues an object lesson in the progress that civilization makes when left to the care of the brother in black. It is a chunk of “Darkest Africa” left festering on the seas. The conditions there being so terrible, even in non-revolutionary periods, there are almost no white residents whose presence, in larger numbers, would force other governments to a summary clean-up of the nauseous spot. U. S. cruiser Tacoma has been dispatched to St. Marc and Gonaives to extend protection to those who may be in distress and to quell further threatened rioting.

The Virginia Decision

How far practice had departed from the equitable principle that all remedy in the State Courts must be exhausted before complainants might appeal their case to the United States Courts, is emphasized by the impression amounting almost to a sensation, produced by the decision, on November 30th last by the Supreme Court covering the Virginia railway rate case, wherein an injunction had first been obtained by the corporation from a lower Federal Court, preventing the enforcement of the two-cent rate prescribed by the Railway Commission of the State. This restraining order was passed May 14, 1907, and the effect thereof was to prevent the exercise of the Railway Commission’s legitimate control over the passenger traffic of their State until now. The rebuke to Federal Judge Pritchard, who granted the injunction, in the reversal of his findings in favor of the railroad comes from a source which the American people have desired to esteem as their highest source of justice, and will have admirable effect. Not only will it do much to allay the irritation and the distrust which has been growing for many years against this tribunal, but it will have most salutary effect upon insolent Federal Judges and ruthless corporations. The injunction has been their sword and buckler. Ignoring the State Courts, they have rushed to obtain injunctions against the enforcement of any measure they happened to dislike. Armed with the premature mandate of a Federal officer, they have defied public opinion and the sovereign authority which created and nurtured them. A firm check on the abuse of the injunction, had become a crying necessity, if the public were to respect wise injunctions and uphold the law.

The decision has been hailed with what could honestly be called “pleased surprise”—so many disappointments had led to the belief that corporate interests were obliged to triumph. Wide-spread approval has been accorded the ruling. In a few instances criticism has been proffered, to the effect that the points over which the case originally occurred are unsolved and that the question of railroad regulation is as misty as before. These are matters, however, which do not touch the principle of State’s redress first, which was universal before the misconstruction of the 14th Amendment made possible such usurpation of authority as the one for which Judge Pritchard has been called down.

* * * * *

Other interesting court decisions have taken place within a short period. The New Jersey Court of Appeals, for instance, has considered a knotty problem relative to its collateral inheritance law. Philo Miles, a British subject, died in London, leaving a considerable amount of stock in a New Jersey corporation and the lower courts held that the tax could be levied upon same. The Appellate Court negatived this conclusion on the ground that personal property which includes stocks and bonds must follow the situs of the owner and be taxed “there and there only.” They held that if every State could levy an inheritance tax upon the full estate of the deceased, his personal property being returned in the inventory of the executor or administrator, the estate of the deceased could be taxed as often as there were States in which he chanced to have personal property at the time of his death. This would, of course, be inconceivable.