COURT LIQUID PLASTER Heals Cuts, Abrasions, Hang-Nails, Applied with a brush and immediately dries, forming a tough, transparent, colorless waterproof coating. MECHANICS, SPORTSMEN, BICYCLISTS, GOLFERS, Etc. are all liable to bruise, scratch, or scrape their skin. "NEW-SKIN" will heal these injuries, will not wash off, and after it is applied the injury is forgotten, as "NEWSKIN" makes a temporary new skin until the broken skin is healed under it. Pocket Size (Size of Illustration) EACH 10c. 25c. 2 oz. Botts. (for Surgeons and Hospitals) 50c. At the Druggists, or we will mail a package anywhere in the United States on receipt of price. Douglas Mfg. Co. Dept. E 107 Fulton St., New York Vol. 73 The Phenomenal Coal Situation Published Weekly January 24, 1903 Every week the coal situation has become more extraordinary, and last week it was fairly enshrouded in mystery. Its most spectacular features were the highly respectable mobs which in three Western towns, under the leadership of bankers and ministers, confiscated the contents of coal cars under an improvised right of eminent domain. This right had previously been asserted by the railroads themselves, which have seized coal ordered by patrons, asserting with much force the prior necessity of keeping their trains moving in order to prevent the famine from becoming greater. This situation, however, though remarkable, was by no means so phenomenal as that developed in New York City by the efforts of the coal magnates to explain to Mayor Low the scarcity and price of coal at the point where nearly all the coal roads converge. All of them claimed to be doing all they could for New York City-though coal is scarce there at $10 a ton, while plentiful on the opposite Jersey shore at $6.50and President Baer, of the Reading, claimed that the extraordinary price current in New York was due entirely to the avarice of the independent operators, who had been released from their contracts to sell to the roads at 65 per cent. of the tide-water price. The roads, he said, were charging at tide-water but $5 a ton wholesale, or only fifty cents more than last winter, because "in times of great distress a decent respect for the necessities of mankind should restrain the seller from taking more than a normal legitimate profit." The roads had, however, permitted the independents to charge all they could get by releasing them from their contracts till March 31, "for fear of litigation," and the price charged by the independents had become the prevailing one. A correspondent of the New York "Evening No. 4 Post" promptly pointed out that as the independent operators were supposed to control but fifteen per cent. of the output, it was difficult to understand how the owners of this fifteen per cent. could so completely wrest the control of the market from the owners of the eighty-five per cent. A still further mystery was the willingness of the roads to release the independents from their contracts "for fear of litigation." Railroads have rarely been so fearful of litigation when they held contracts with their patrons. The whole situation is extremely difficult to clear up. The most plausible explanation offered is suggested by the statement of a coal expert that the " company coal" is mainly sold in the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which control legislation governing the roads, while the independents are permitted to send all their coal to the New York, New England, Western, and Southern markets. Even according to this statement, however, nearly two-thirds of the coal for the distant markets is still supplied by the companies at almost normal prices, and yet consumers rarely seem to be getting any of this coal. And it is not yet forgotten that Mr. Baer, on October 23, wrote to his general manager: "Where dealers seek to obtain an unfair profit from the public, you will promptly take steps to supply the reasonable demands of the public directly." the beginning of December, that the Republican Congress had ignored this recommendation during the intervening weeks of coal famine, and that the time had come for this recommendation to be embodied in legislation. Senator Aldrich, the Republican leader in tariff matters, at first objected to the consideration of this resolution on the strong Constitutional ground that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House, but immediately weakened his position by declaring that the Democrats talked about free coal when out of power, but when in power had, with the exception of Senator Hill, of New York, voted unanimously for a duty of forty cents a ton. Senator Vest answered this thrust most effectively by telling the whole truth, though it cut sharply the faction of his own party which favors levying taxes to promote private revenues. It was a well-known fact, he declared, that the Senate amendment restoring a duty on coal when the House Democrats had made it free was dictated by a handful of Democratic Senators who "held up" the party by threatening to act with the Republicans unless the coal interests continued to be protected. As the debate continued, Senator Vest again drew fire by declaring that Mr. Dingley had placed the duties in the present tariff higher than he thought they ought to remain, for the express purpose of furnishing a margin to be traded away for commercial concessions from other conntries. Senators Aldrich and Hale resented the statement that such strategy had been employed by Mr. Dingley, even declaring that it was a reflection upon his honor, when Senator Dolliver, who had been Mr. Dingley's associate on the Committee on Ways and Means, created confusion in the ranks of his ultra-protectionist colleagues by declaring that Mr. Dingley "did put the duties up for the express purpose of having them traded down," and defended the policy as not only in line with the precedents set by the parliaments of Europe, but in line with all the Republican platform declarations in favor of reciprocity. As the debate proceeded it became evident to the protectionist leaders that their party would not defend a tariff on coal when it already commanded famine prices, and when the House Committee met to frame a bill the Republican members soon agreed to make anthracite coal permanently free of duty, and to grant for one year a rebate of the full tax collected on importations of bituminous coal. The bill embodying this proposal passed the House with less than half a dozen adverse votes, and was accepted by the Senate and signed by the President as soon as the bill came before them. The rebate feature of the bill is a concession to the ultra-protectionists, but in its operation will be simply a useless and annoying piece of red tape. Proposed Seizure of Mines and Railroads But the putting of coal on the free list did not express the radicalism which the present famine has developed among people hitherto classed as conservative. On the day the duties were suspended Chairman Jenkins, of the Judiciary Committee of the House, introduced a resolution in line with ex-Senator Hill's "revolutionary" plank in the New York Democratic platform last fall, and recommending a far larger measure of public ownership than Senator Hill if Congress has the Constitutional power to order has arisen. it, and the necessity for its exercise The resolution read as follows: Resolved, That the Committee on Judiciary be and is hereby directed to investigate and report to this House with all convenient speed the opinion of that Committee as to the power of Congress to declare that a necessity has arisen for taking possession of all coal, coalbeds, and coal-mines in the United States, and all lines of transportation, agencies, instruments, and vehicles of commerce necessary for the transportation of coal, and that if in and a necessity for the exercise of such power the opinion of that Committee the power exists has arisen, that that Committee forthwith report to this House a bill declaring the necessity, providing fully and in detail the occasions, modes, conditions, and agencies for said appropriation that will fully and completely exhibit the power of Congress in that regard. It' offering it as a bid for popular favor. indicates, not merely how deep and widespread is the dissatisfaction with the conditions into which private and uncontrolled ownership and management of the coal mines and coal roads have brought the country, but also how far that dissatisfaction has carried leaders of public opinion in a Socialistic direction. The coal operators have done more to give Socialism a standing in the United States than all the apostles of Socialism since the word was first coined. The Outlook expresses with reserve its judgment on the Constitutional aspect of this proposition. It appears to us, however, entirely reasonable to believe that the Supreme Court would uphold the power of Congress under the Constitution to take over any railroads of an inter-State character and operate them for the public benefit, provided, of course, provision was made for paying the present owners a fair market price for them. The Constitution gives Congress absolute control of all inter-State commerce. It puts no explicit limits upon that control. It implies no other limits than such as are necessarily implied in other provisions of the Constitution, such as that private property cannot be taken for public use without compensation. Control of inter-State commerce involves control of all the instruments of inter-State commerce; that is, Congress has practically unlimited powerexcept as above indicated-over all the instruments of inter-State commerce, including inter-State railroads. The decisions of the Supreme Court sanction, we think, this general statement. If, in the opinion of Congress, that control can be exercised only by seizing and operating the instruments of inter-State commerce, it would have the Constitutional right to seize and operate them, either temporarily or permanently, provided that in doing so it gave a reasonable compensation to the present owners. It has the same right to carry fuel that it has to carry letters; and whether a public necessity has arisen for the exercise of this right is a question for Congress, not for the Court, to decide. right to seize and operate the coal-mines is by no means equally clear. We are not able to see how that right under our Constitution can be defended. The But the United States is a Nation, but it is a Nation formed by the union of sovereign States. Their sovereignty is limited and defined; but the sovereignty of the Federal Government is also limited and defined. By the Constitution the powers not conferred upon the Federal Government either by express terms or by necessary implication are reserved to the States. A clause in the Constitution expressly confers on the Federal Government the power to regulate inter-State commerce, but we do not know of any clause in the Constitution which in express terms or by necessary implication confers upon that Government the authority to enter a State and take the property of private owners and use it, not for governmental purposes, but for the general benefit of the public at large. Nor do we see how the claim by the Federal Government of such power can be reconciled with decisions of the Supreme Court which have drawn a clear line of distinction between inter-State commerce and the products of industry which are the subjects of that commerce. Mr. Jenkins's resolutions are both interesting and significant, because they indicate a public spirit which it will be wise for coal operators and coal roads not to set at defiance; but we do not believe that the people will attempt so radical a remedy for present ills until they have experimented with other measless drastic and revolutionary in their character. ures Mormon Apostle Named for United States Senate At the Republican caucus of the Utah Legislature held last week to nominate a United States Senator to succeed Mr. Rawlins, Apostle Reed Smoot received more than three-quarters of the votes on the first ballot, and his nomination was immediately made unanimous. As the Utah Legislature is this year Republican by the overwhelming majority of 51 to 11, Mr. Smoot's nomination is of course equivalent to an election. Week before last it was announced that President Roosevelt had communicated to Mr. Smoot the request that he withdraw his candidacy, but this communication, if made, produced no effect either upon Mr. Smoot or his Mormon supporters, who were moved neither by the injury the nomination would do their party nor by the new agitation it would arouse against their Church. Democrats as well as Republicans, it was reported, resented the pressure exerted from Washington, and Senator Dubois, of Idaho, declared that the influence of the Mormon hierarchy had made Utah and Idaho Republican, and that the Republican leaders, who had encouraged this ecclesiastical activity in politics, could not well object to the nomination of an ecclesiastic to high office. The Salt Lake Ministerial Association, however, and its supporters do not intend to accept Mr. Smoot's election by the Utah Legislature, but propose to appeal to the Senate to exclude him, just as they appealed to the House for the exclusion of Mr. Roberts three years ago. The grounds for their opposition, as stated by Judge C. C. Goodwin, the head of the movement, are in brief as follows: An Apostle of the Mormon Church is not a citizen of the United States. He has foresworn his allegiance and given it with all the solemnity of the most binding oaths to another temporal government, a government the machinery of which is in full working order. It has a president who exercises dictatorial powers; it has its own courts, which frequently reverse and put to naught the decisions of the State's courts. We hold that to give a high officer, one of the few who absolutely rule this kingdom, a seat in the Senate of the United States is to open the citadel of our liberties to our enemies. Statehood was granted on the express pledge of the chiefs of this kingdom, notably by him who is now president of it, that henceforth the people should not be interfered with politically. There is not a child in Utah as much as fourteen years of age who does not know that the coercion of the Mormon voters this year by the priesthood was just as pronounced as it ever was. Finally, the election of an Apostle to the Senate of the United States would be a notice served on every young man in Utah that if he would ever aspire to promotion in any direction his only hope in Utah is through Church promotions. These objections, it will be seen, do not include the one upon which Mr. Roberts was excluded from the House of Representatives. It is not charged that Mr. Smoot is a polygamist, and he cannot, therefore, be kept out of the Senate on the ground that he is a violator of the law. If excluded, it must be on the ground of his high official position in an unpatriotic Church; and this objection, which does not exclude Ultramontane Catholics from the parliaments of France and Germany, could not be made to exclude Apostle Smoot without solidifying the Mormon Church as a political factor and magnifying the power of its officials. The part which the Mormon hierarchy is taking in our National politics is disgraceful not only to Utah but to the Nation, but the action which the Nation ought to take to wipe out this disgrace is not to violate the principles of religious equality by excluding a Mormon from the Senate, but to assert the principles of civil equality by excluding polygamy from American soil. Before Utah was admitted to Statehood, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives reported unanimously in favor of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting polygamy within the territory of the United States. The election of Apostle Smoot ought to be the signal for petitions demanding the passage of this amend ment. The Detention of Mabini Senator Hoar, at the request of the Anti-Imperialist Committee, has introduced a resolution into the Senate asking for an inquiry into the so-called Mabini case. Mabini is a Filipino not only of unusual intelligence, but of thorough education and culture; he was one of Aguinaldo's Cabinet in the early days of the American conflict in the Philippines. He is an "irreconcilable," and when Aguinaldo and other influential Filipino officers took the oath of allegiance to the United States Government he declined to sign it with them. For this reason he was deported from the Philippine Islands and was for a time a political prisoner at Guam. The War Department declines to let him reenter the Philippines unless he will take the oath of allegiance to the American civil government there. The grounds for this refusal are these: Mabini was and is a man of peculiar and forceful personal influence among the insurrectionists. He is a violent if not a virulent opponent of American sovereignty; he is at the same time believed to be a man of honor, so that if bound by the oath of allegiance he would not undertake to undermine or attack the civil government. He has asserted this to be the very reason why he declines to take the oath. Not bound by it, he could very easily on his return give an apparently patriotic character to the |