1914 THE WEEK 439* the other is by Henry Chappell, a name that may be familiar to some of our readers as that of the " railway poet of Bath." A CHANT OF HATE AGAINST BY ERNST LISSAUER in "Jugend" Rendered into English verse by Barbara Henderson Reprinted from the New York "Times" French and Russian, they matter not, He is known to you all, he is known to you all, An oath for our sons and their sons to take. Come, hear the word, repeat the word, ENGLAND! In the captain's mess, in the banquet-hall, Spoke three words only: "To the Day !" Whose glass this fate? They had all but a single hate. Who was thus known? They had one foe and one alone— ENGLAND! Take you the folk of the earth in pay, Not all the waters of all the Rhine Can wash thy foul hands clean. You dreamed for the Day, you schemed for the Day, Watch how the Day will go; Slayer of age and youth and prime You have sown for the Day, you have grown for the Day, Yours is the Harvest red; Can you hear the groans and the awful cries? Can you see the heap of the slain that lies, And sightless turned to the flame-split skies The glassy eyes of the dead? You have longed for the Day, you have wronged for the Day That lit the awful flame. 'Tis nothing to you that hill and plain But after the Day there's a price to pay "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." THE PRESIDENT TO CONGRESS President Wilson in an open letter to Mr. Underwood has given his measure of what the Democratic party has accomplished during the past two years. The Democratic programme, President Wilson says, "had several distinct parts and many items, but, after all, a single purpose, namely, to destroy private control and set business free." Steps in the accomplishment of this programme President Wilson finds in the abolition of the lobby, in the Currency Bill, in the reform of the tariff on a purely competitive basis, and in the Clayton Bill, upon which The Outlook has recently commented. "Incidentally" to this, Mr. Wilson says, "justice has been done the laborer. His labor is no longer to be treated as if it were merely an inanimate object of commerce disconnected from the fortunes and happiness of a living human being, to be dealt with as an object of sale and barter." Likewise, Mr. Wilson believes that the Clayton Bill will prove the clear and final check sufficient to destroy in its infancy the " noxious growth" of monopoly. "Monopolies," President Wilson says, "are built up by unfair methods of competition, and the new Trade Commission has power to forbid and prevent unfair competition, whether upon a big scale or upon a little, whether just begun or grown old and formidable." President Wilson also rejoices in the fact that the Clayton Bill in a large measure prevents interlocking directorates. For "monopoly," he says, "is created also by putting the same men in charge of a variety of business enter. prises, whether apparently related or unrelated to one another." Mr. Wilson apparently looks upon this abolition of monopoly as an accomplished fact. "If our party," he says, "were to be called upon to name the particular point of principle in which it differs from its opponents most sharply, should, no doubt, say it was this: That we would have no dealings with monopoly, but reject it altogether; while our opponents were ready to adopt it into the realm of law, and seek merely to regulate it and moderate it in its operation. It is our purpose to destroy monopoly and maintain competition as the only effectual instrument of business liberty." we We think that even those who agree with the President and sympathize with him in his ambitions for the absolute destruction of monopoly will be somewhat inclined to be less sanguine than he as to the demonstrated results of the Democratic policy. As Mr. Underwood said in his reply to the President, "We cannot expect that the reforms inaugurated by your Administration will immediately demonstrate their worth. After a law is on the statute-books it takes months and often years before the sentiment of a country adjusts itself to the new conditions." With this reservation, Mr. Underwood concludes, "I feel sure that time will prove that the legislation which has been enacted at this Congress is the beginning of a new life for our Nation." Hope may be justified by future events, but it cannot be taken as absolute proof of past accomplishments. THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION The meeting of the American Bar Association in Washington, D. C., last week was of peculiar and memorable interest to the layman because of three remarkable addresses made on the opening day. They were unusually free from the technical and purely scientific ideas and phraseology which only legal minds are competent to enjoy. President Wilson with his characteristic literary skill drew a parallel between the Court of Public Opinion and courts of law. The final judg ments of public opinion, he said, are based not upon technicalities, but upon the character of the witnesses and upon a consideration of motives as well as of definite actions. In the Court of Public Opinion "if you can establish your character you can establish your credit." You cannot go any faster than you can advance the average moral judgments of the mass, but you can go at least as fast as that, and you can see to it that you do not lag behind the average moral judgments of the mass. I have in my life dealt with all sorts and conditions of men, and I have found that the flame of moral judgment burned just as bright in the man of humble life and limited experience as in the scholar and the man of affairs. And I would like his voice always to be heard, not as a witness, not as speaking in his own case, but as if he were the voice of men in ' general, in our courts of justice as well as THE WEEK the voice of the lawyers, remembering what the law has been. The address by ex-President Taft was one of his strongest public utterances. He reviewed the recent anti-trust legislation and by implication criticised Congress for not giving the new Trade Commission either sufficient authority or sufficient responsibility. In this we cordially agree with him. He compared the function of the new Trade Commission to that of a master in chancery, whose findings the Chancery Court can follow or ignore as it pleases. He also implied that, while the country has rightly directed itself to a regulation of combinations of capital, it has neglected to take proper precautions regarding great combinations of labor. "The abuses growing out of the enormous power of combinations of labor, which have been also manifest, have not evoked the same regulative legislative tendency." This is a true and timely saying. Perhaps the most important thing, however, in the ex-President's address was his recommendation that Congress should pass a statute which shall put it "in the power of the President to institute judicial proceedings, civil and criminal, in courts of the United States to punish a violation of the treaty rights of aliens and enable him to use the civil and military executive arm of the Government to protect against their threatened invasion." He did not mention the name of Japan, but it is easy to see what was in his mind. Perhaps it is too much to ask a Democratic Congress to follow a recommendation of a Republican ex-President. But if Congress would yield partisanship to patriotism and pass the statute which Mr. Taft suggests, it would probably do more than the building of ten dreadnoughts a year to maintain peace between the Occident and the Orient. The third striking speech was made by Senator Root. In his opinion, our legislators make too many laws and make them too unintelligently. Between the years 1909 and 1913 over sixty thousand statutes were passed by our National and State legisla tures. "Many of these statutes are drawn inartistically, carelessly, ignorantly. Their terms are so vague, uncertain, doubtful, that they breed litigation inevitably." One concrete suggestion which he makes to meet this abuse is the establishment in every legislature of a good reference library and an expert drafting bureau to prepare bills, as they are prepared, 441* It for instance, in the State of Wisconsin. is an interesting sign of the times that so eminent a lawyer as Senator Root should conclude an address at so important a gathering of his professional colleagues with the following sentence: "Another thing the bar can do is to simplify the procedure of our courts. The American man is intensely practical and direct in his methods. American procedure ought to follow as closely as possible the methods of thought and action of American farmers and business men." AMERICA AND ITS DEPENDENT PEOPLES Lake Mohonk stands for two American ideas. Neither of them is exclusively American; but both of them, we are convinced, dominate the American people. One idea is that international differences should be settled by a more rational method than war. That idea is represented at Lake Mohonk by a Peace Conference every spring. The other idea is that strong nations responsible for the protection and protection and government of dependent peoples should conduct their dependencies in the interest not of the strong nation but of the dependent peoples. That idea is represented by a Conference on Indians and Other Dependent Peoples every fall. The Conference just held at Lake Mohonk was devoted to the two general subjects-the Indians and the inhabitants of the Philippines. The interest in both these subjects was particularly acute this year because the change in the Administration at Washington has had a chance to show its effects both in the administration of Indian affairs and upon the Nation's Philippine policy. It is natural that those who have devoted years of labor on behalf of these dependent peoples and have succeeded in instilling into one political party something of their own ideals should have looked with some misgiving upon the advent of another party which had not had for many years any experience in administering Indian affairs from Washington, and had never had any experience in administering the affairs of the Philippines. It was consequently natural, therefore, that at this conference there was an unusual degree of doubt, not to say pessimism. Perhaps the doubt may have been justified, but certainly not the pessimism. not the pessimism. Rather, those who have had the interest of such peoples as the Indians and the Filipinos at heart might well welcome the opportunity of educating another political party in their own ideals. The truth is, moreover, that this process of education in ideals has not been confined to one party. The whole country has been trained in the art of applying to weaker peoples the ideals of liberty and of applying them in an efficient way. Nevertheless, the change of administration has brought one danger, and this was emphasized at the Conference. It is the danger of intrusting difficult and delicate problems to inexperienced men. We still have in this country the ridiculous tradition of changing administrators with party changes. There is, for example, a new Commissioner of Indian Affairs in Washington. He has come to his office with no experience concerning the work of that Bureau. The unquestioned honesty of his purpose cannot take the place of such experience; nor can it undo the harm that is done by the stirring up of partisan activities. To the Indians the most acute peril is that which threatens them in Oklahoma. The story of the wrongs done to the Indians in that State is a long one. For those wrongs the Nation as a whole is responsible, although they have been perpetrated largely under State government. Against these wrongs a woman, Miss Kate Barnard, herself a Democrat in a Democratic State, has been fighting with tenacity and almost heedless bravery. The discovery that the lands of the Oklahoma Indians cover untold wealth has roused covetousness that has inspired graft, violence, and even, so it is alleged, murder. And at just this time, when the Indians need the Nation's protection against the State, changes are being made under the plea of economy which imperil whatever power the Nation retains there over Indian affairs. The present Administration at Washington needs to be on its guard if it is not going to affix to the Democratic party the responsibility for new dishonor in Indian matters. So serious has the problem become of saving the Indians from the perils of isolation forced upon them by the practice of placing them on reservations, and so obvious is the need of an efficient governmental instrument for developing the Indians into a status of American citizenship, that it has been proposed to abolish the Indian Office, and in its stead to create a permanent non-partisan commission, each member of which should have a specific duty with regard to the development of the Indians-one to deal with their education, another with their health, and so on. AMERICA AND THE FILIPINOS As in the case of the Indians, so in the case of the Filipinos. There was reason given at this Conference for the belief that inexperience was working injury. Even if due allowance is made for the inevitable belief on the part of those who have been at work at a certain task that their successors cannot do it as well, there was ground for fears that much of the good work that has been done during the past dozen years or so is in fair way of being undone. Ex-Governor Forbes, whose policy has been attacked, made a restrained and generous speech recognizing the right of the new Administration to institute a different policy, but frankly stating why he thought it mistaken. Mr. Fitzgerald, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the House of Representatives at Washington, who presided at the Conference, outlined and interpreted the purposes of the Jones Bill, which has already been summarized and commented upon in The Outlook. As a loyal representative of the Democratic party, he defended this Democratic measure, and there seemed to be a general feeling that the Administration had a right to enlarge the powers of self-government in the islands and to try the experiment of intrusting more power to the hands of the Filipinos. What, however, was widely resented, though the resentment was implied rather than expressed, was the apparent lack of appreciation on the part of the present Administration of what had been done in the past. There was very little indication on the part of those who advocated the Democratic policy that what had been done in the Philippines was anything better than exploitation modified by benevolent despotism. One of the speakers, Mr. W. Morgan Shuster, for instance, gave no credit for what was done. On the contrary, he branded as hypocrisy the expressions of interest in the welfare of the Filipinos on the part of those who had gone on behalf of the United States to help in the government of the islands. And this he said in spite of and without any reference to the fact that a few years ago he himself was paying his tribute to what had been done in the islands under former Administrations. Similarly, Mr. Quezon, the Philippine Delegate to Congress, had no word to indicate that the United States had rendered any service whatever to the islands. Such an attitude as this bodes little good for the Filipinos, for it indicates that partisanship is directing the new policy. Beyond, however, these differences of opinion with regard to specific questions of policy, there was one point in which the Conference was certainly unanimous, and that was that these dependent peoples, Indians and Filipinos alike, should be governed for their benefit. The attitude that such a country as Germany has taken toward its African colonies would have been inconceivable on the part of any participant in that Conference at Lake Mohonk. And the reason why it would be inconceivable is that it would be totally contrary to the whole spirit of the Nation. Whatever mistakes are made by the United States in its declared policy with regard to such peoples as these will be made through carelessness, indifference, inexperience, unwisdom, but not through a deliberate policy on the part of the American people as a whole to exploit these dependent peoples and to make use of them for the glorification of the Nation. GOVERNOR GLYNN AND THE By far the most important utterance that has been made in the present political campaign in the State of New York was made on Tuesday evening of last week at Watertown by Governor Glynn. A political critic had presented to him a series of questions on the public school, which he read and answered categorically. The questions and answers as reported verbatim in the New York "Times" are as follows: I. "Do you believe in the absolute separation of the Church and State ?" I do. No man who understands the principles upon which this Republic was founded can tolerate the suggestion of interference in the affairs of government by any sect or creed. 2. "Do you believe that no public funds should be used for any sectarian purpose whatever?" In answer I have no hesitancy in saying that I am uncomprisingly opposed to the use of public funds for the support or aid of any particular sect or religious denomination. 3. "Do you believe that the free public schools are the best medium for instruction of our children and assimilating the different nationalities and making intelligent and useful citizens of them?" I answer, emphatically, "Yes." As a product. 443* of the public schools, I take a special interest in our school system, and am now, as I have been throughout my career, a firm and unyielding advocate of every measure that guards and strengthens the public school system of our country. . . . If I were asked to state what, in my opinion, is the choicest product and fairest fruition of liberty, I would unhesitatingly name the public school system of the United States. For sinister purposes and with malicious intent, certain people are spreading the story that, if elected Governor, I will advocate the sharing of school moneys between public schools and parochial schools. Here and now I want to brand this story as a diabolical falsehood. If elected, I will do no such thing. If the Legislature passed any law, with this as its object, I would not sign it. I am in favor of no such policy. I believe that the people who want sectarian schools should support the sectarian school. This is The Outlook's platform, and we are delighted to find that it is one on which we can stand with so good a product of the Roman Catholic Church and of the American public school as Governor Glynn. The American public school system is unique in the civilized world. It has serious defects, such as its inadequacy in moral and spiritual training. But nevertheless it is the greatest single institution in the United States common to its whole territory and all its population. No other institution is so inclusive, so catholic. It may, and, happily for the United States, it does, afford a common ground and meetingplace for Austrian, German, Russian, French man, Briton, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jew, agnostic, white man and black man. Any man or set of men who weaken its efficiency or undermine its catholicity are enemies of their country. We wish that the questions which Governor Glynn has so frankly made public and has so vigorously and satisfactorily answered could be presented to every candidate for the office of delegate to the coming Constitutional Convention in this State. The question of free, universal, and unprejudiced education is more important than questions of government efficiency, taxation, or good roads, because the American public school and the principle upon which it was founded underlie all good citizenship and the very structure of the American State. A GIFT DECLINED A novel and interesting gift was offered. some months ago to the New York Public |