A Letter from Senator Hoar

To the Editors of The Outlook:

I have seen in one of the papers that The Outlook has stated lately that I had reproved or rebuked the President of the United States for interfering with legislation, and, in commenting on that, added that I formerly made a public complaint of persons who ventured to exercise their constitutional right of petitioning Congress or the Senate.

I have done neither the one nor the other, and the statement of The Outlook rests on a total misunderstanding of what I said.

A Senator stated on the floor that a bill which he desired to have taken up and passed was approved by the President and one of the Heads of the Departments, and that the President, although he had shortly before vetoed a similar bill, was now satisfied that the bill ought to pass. Of that statement I complained, calling attention to the fact that such statements as to the opinion of the Crown are always held a breach of privilege in the British Parliament, and I urged that nobody had the right to undertake to influence legislation by statements of the opinion of the President; to which I added that "the time for the President to make up his mind about legislation is after we have passed it and not before, unless he avail himself of his constitutional right to make recommendations in his messages, which is the proper way."

I did not in the least reprove President Roosevelt, and did not complain that he had in any respect departed from pro priety. All that I complained of was the habit that has grown up among some of the Senators of claiming to be special depositaries of the President's wishes.

Second. I never complained of the right of petition, or uttered a word or had a thought inconsistent with it. Some years ago there was a proposed treaty agreed upon between our State Department and the British Minister which provided, among other things, that when any question came up between the two countries, it should be left to a tribunal which should

contain two Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. It also provided that other nations should be invited to accede to that treaty. We have only nine Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. It takes five for a quorum. So if that treaty had become law, and we had had a question with Great Britain grave enough to be referred to that tribunal, we must have withdrawn two of our Judges; and if two of the others—all of them being men of an advanced age—had happened to be at that time ill, we should have had a bare quorum to settle the greatest constitutional questions which might affect the fate of the Republic.

Further than this. The treaty provided that any other countries that saw fit might become parties to it. So we might have made treaty oblgations which would require the taking from their duties for a long period of time the whole of the Supreme Court of the United States, or a majority of it. The investigations which might come up might take, as the Canada dispute has taken already, a good many months. We might have boundary questions, like the Venezuela case, or questions of commercial or maritime rights, like the Canada fisheries case, or like the Behring Sea sealing question. In other words, the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, as it stood, was utterly preposterous.

Now, before the treaty had been printed, and before the papers accompanying the treaty had been sent to the Senate and laid on the table, the press, and especially the religious press, was clamoring that we should adopt the treaty without delay and without amendments. One well-known paper, published in my own city, said: "Let the Senators stop talking about it and vote and go home." A very worthy orthodox minister in Worcester preached a foolish sermon from his pulpit denouncing the Senate for thinking that such a humane measure in the interests of peace needed any discussion. Then the petitions began to come in-petitions signed in utter ignorance of what the petitioners were talking about.

Now this was not simply harmless folly.

I was very eager at that time to get this treaty ratified with proper amendments. I got the pledges of many Senators, who would otherwise have voted against it, that if I would get certain amendments, among others one modifying this provis. ion in regard to the Judges of the Supreme Court, they would vote for it. I got the votes of eleven Senators, nearly enough to secure its passage by the necessary two-thirds vote, by that amendment. But this public clamor which came from the press and the pulpit made it much harder for us to get Great Britain to amend it. The trouble with this angry talk about diplomatic matters is that the other side to the bargain, when we try to get them to come to our terms, says to our diplomatic agents, "Why, your own people are for this thing as it is. Your newspapers are writing articles for it. Your clergymen are preaching for it, and your citizens are petitioning for it." It is not a good Yankee method of making a bargain to have an agent in the midst of his trade reviled by his principal and employer because he does not come at once to the other side, unless the other side is to be expected to dictate the terms.

What I have said in this letter is in substance what I said in the Senate. I am, with high regard, faithfully yours, GEORGE F. HOAR. Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

[In this letter Senator Hoar states two principles from the first we dissent; with the second we agree. In our judgment, the President occupies a position much more nearly akin to that of the Prime Minister than to that of the King in England. The King has no politics and belongs to no party. The President, like the Prime Minister, is the official leader of the party which has elected him to office. There is very good reason, therefore, why he should inform Congress of the views which he entertains as the leader of his party, and this has often been done by Presidents in other ways than through formal messages. We are inclined to think that it would be well if the members of his Cabinet had seats in the House of Representatives and could be questioned on the floor of the House, as the members of the Government can be in the House of Commons. On the

other hand, while it is quite legitimate for the press and the public to discuss the general principles involved in a treaty, as the principle of reciprocity involved in the Cuban treaty, and of an interoceanic canal involved in the Colombian treaty, the details should always be left to be settled by the authorities in Washington, and, in our judgment, those details should be discussed privately in executive session, and for the reasons which Senator Hoar has so admirably stated.—THE EDITORS.]

Lend-a-Hand Book Mission

To the Editors of The Outlook:

I am constantly asked for information in regard to the Lend-a-Hand Book Mission. This was its origin. In 1892 a Southern minister and a teacher applied to me for the gift of second-hand publications to give to people in the rural districts who had no money to pay for them. Generous donations were sent, which were followed by touching expressions of gratitude.

Other calls received a liberal response. From this humble beginning has arisen a wide educational movement under the name of the Lend-a-Hand Book Mission.

Its object is to collect books and periodicals which the owners have read and laid aside, and place them in communities where the people are scantily supplied.

We are now confronted with new and important opportunities and responsibilities. In going from city to town and village the past winter, we everywhere found leading men and women of the South fully comprehending the ignorance and destitution of dwellers in remote places, and they are making energetic efforts to place higher mental advantages within the reach of the masses.

I have attended meetings of the Woman's Clubs in several States, and am greatly interested in the very successful philanthropic work they have entered upon. They are sending traveling libraries into the rural districts. Each library consists of from fifty to one hundred useful and entertaining books; one-third are for adults and the remainder are for children. A library remains in a town from two to six months, and then is transported to another equally needy community.

The country people who read these

books are kind, warm-hearted, and honest, with good capabilities, but lack develop

ment.

Some of the Woman's Clubs have so many applications on file that it is impossible to supply the demands, and people are obliged to wait for weeks before their turn comes to receive a library.

The value of providing useful literature cannot be overestimated. I have talked with this class of Southern people, and understand their aspirations and necessities. They have enlisted my sympathy and interest, and I wish to make a strong plea in their behalf.

Thirty traveling libraries through the Lend-a-Hand Book Mission have been presented to some of the Woman's Clubs. They ask and need our continued help. So many requests are coming to this Mission that at least one hundred and fifty traveling libraries are needed to carry forward this part of our work. The books most called for are "Black Beauty," "Ben-Hur," the Henty books, "Little Men," "Little Women,' ,"Chatter box," "Pilgrim's Progress," "Beautiful Joe," "In His Steps,' "Adam Bede," Dickens's "Child's History of England," "Five Little Peppers," Phillips Brooks's Sermons, "Alice in Wonderland," etc. These and other books of a similar character are carrying brightness and knowledge into thousands of obscure homes.

Sunday-schools are constantly replenishing their libraries. What becomes of the old books? They would furnish excellent food for hungry minds. Town and city libraries sometimes have duplicate copies of volumes, which, after their early popularity has passed, would be a great boon to less fortunate libraries.

I have visited some of the State prisons. Convicts are especially glad to receive the "Youth's Companion" and the "Christian Herald." The wardens are uniformly polite, and consider it a privilege to give helpful publications to the unfortunate prisoners under their charge. Magazines, juvenile Sunday papers, Bibles, Scripture and picture cards can be used to great advantage.

All offers of reading should be made Please do not send packages to the Lend-a-Hand Office, Boston, as this

to me.

is my post-office address only, and it is not a depot for reading supplies.

Please send me a list of what has been collected, and I will reply, giving informa tion to whom and to what place in the South your reading material can be forwarded. The freight must be prepaid by the donors.

This useful work of making thousands of restricted lives richer and happier has no boundary line, and its influence cannot be measured. SARAH P. BRIGHAM. Lend-a-Hand Office, 1 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass.

The Mormon Attitude To the Editors of The Outlook :

6

In your issue of February 14 you state that " testimony . . . was to the effect that no Mormon would run for political office without the consent of the 'First Presidency' of the Church.'" This statement will not be borne out by the facts, which are well understood in this section, and should have been known by the Senators from Utah, Idaho, and Colorado. The organization of the "Mormon Church" is most thorough and efficient, and it is true that no church officer would leave his church work for a politi cal position which would take him away from his church duties, without resigning or securing leave of absence from his immediate superiors (not necessarily from the "First Presidency"). Would this not be true of any church organization? Any Mormon who is not an officer of the Church would not have to secure permission from any one.

With the practical abandonment of polygamy and admission of Utah as a State came a breaking up of the old division into Mormon and anti-Mormon parties and a readjustment along National party lines. It is claimed by the "Mormons," and believed by the unprejudiced "Gentiles" who are in a position to judge, that for the past fifteen years the "Mormon Church" has not in the slightest particular interfered with the political beliefs of the members of that body The writer of this letter is not a member of the "Mormon Church," but rather entirely opposed to their peculiar beliefs. Boise, Idaho. J. R. F.