When I buy a horse, I want my horse. When a Republican buys a vote, he wants his vote. When a Democrat buys a vote, he wants his vote. So, you see, there are, as I contend, no politics in it; for Mr. Democrat has thus an opportunity to get his vote, instead of being cheated out of it, as he has been so many times in this State." In the face of this shameless and cynical defense of the law by one of Mr. Addicks's chief adherents, in spite of the uncontradicted facts with regard to its operation recently set forth in these columns by Mr. Kennan, and in contemptuous disregard of the representations and appeals made to him by clergymen, delegations, and honest, patriotic citizens from all parts of the State, Governor Hunn has practically vetoed the repeal of this obnoxious law by withholding his signature until the constitutional limit of thirty days has expired. In so doing he has given his support to the boldest briber and vote-buyer now in the political field, and has virtually joined Senator Conner in declaring that when an office-seeker buys a vote, he is entitled to the "delivery of the goods."

in Misscuri

The State of Mis"Pure Food" Corruption souri has been defrauded and its Legislature corrupted by a decoy "Public Health Society," created, it is said, in the interests of a baking-powder combination to aid it in suppressing competition. Last week, through the efforts of the county prosecuting attorney at Jefferson City, supported by the Attorney-General of the State and Circuit Attorney Folk, a startling amount of evidence was brought before the Grand Juries at the capital city and in St. Louis, demonstrating the lavish use of bribery in the State Senate, and leading to the indictment of several of its most prominent members. One of the indictments returned was for the accept ance of a bribe in connection with school text-book legislation, but the others were all connected with the Public Health Society's "Pure Food" Bill. This measure was smuggled through the Legislature in 1899, under the guise of protecting the public against food adulterations. It was aimed, however, particularly at the use of alum in the preparation of bakingpowder, and for that reason was supported

This

by the so-called baking-powder trust-the competitors of which, it is alleged, use alum in preparing their wares. No doubt there are good reasons for condemning the use of alum on hygienic grounds, but the passage of the Pure Food Bill was intended to give the four manufactories in the so-called trust a practical monopoly in Missouri. This effect was made apparent by suits brought by a son of United States Senator Stone against baking-powder firms not in the combination. At the session of 1901 a repeal bill was introduced and passed the lower house by a large majority, but was held up in the Senate-partly through the influence of Senator Stone, who appeared as attorney for the so-called Public Health Society. At the last session of the Legislature the repeal bill was again passed by the House, but was defeated in the Senate by the casting vote of Lieutenant-Governor Lee. officer, who has completely broken down in health during the present investigation, has confessed that the agent of the socalled baking-powder trust made several attempts to bribe him, and after the repeal bill was defeated sent him a check for $1,000. This check he kept for some ten days, or, as the St. Louis " Post-Dispatch" puts it, until he saw that exposure was imminent. Some of the Senators involved in the bribe-taking appear to have made a clean breast of the matter before one or the other of the Grand Juries, while two others are in hiding. A sweeping crossfire of indictments appears to be in preparation, the Jefferson City Grand Jury indicting accused corruptionists for bribery, while the St. Louis Grand Jury indicts them for perjury at earlier investigations. The effective co-operation of the prosecuting authorities at the capital and at the metropolis does much to counteract for the State the shame of the legislative misdoings. Circuit Attorney Folk is certainly not making this fight alone, and in St. Louis itself it appears that he is much more widely supported than the reportwhich we erroneously accepted-of the recent councilmanic election indicated. The upper house of the newly elected Council proves to be exceptionally satisfactory to the reformers. It was only in a few wards that machine candidates obnoxious to the Circuit Attorney were elected to the lower house.

The National AssociaCounter-Organization tion of Manufacturers, by Employers which met in New Or

leans last week, has during the last year, under the presidency of Mr. D. M. Parry, of Indianapolis, turned its efforts into the channel of resisting the aggrandizement of organized labor. Even its legislative work, as President Parry reported to the New Orleans Convention, has been chiefly directed along these lines, and its influence upon Congress, as he pointed out, has been manifest in the failure of organized labor to secure action in both houses upon the anti-injunction and eight-hours bills which the labor forces were pressing so vigorously. This new line of activity, a warm supporter of President Parry writes us, has brought to the Association new power. "A year ago, when he [Mr. Parry] became President, there were one thousand manufacturing establishments on the roll of members. Since he developed the policy of strenuous opposition to labor, the membership has doubled, and it is now growing at the rate of one hundred and fifty per month. The plan of the Association is to promote employers' associations in every State, each association to be a part of an employers' council of the United States.

The proper balance between capital and labor cannot be maintained with labor organized and capital unorganized." At New Orleans the Association formulated its attitude toward organized labor. It declared itself not to be opposed to the principle of organized labor, but to be unalterably opposed to boycotts and blacklists, to discrimination against employees because of membership or non-membership in unions, to all interference between employers and employed by outside organizations or agents, and to all restrictions upon the opportunity of any person to learn a trade. Except the resolution against the interference of outside organizations—which literally would apply to activities of the proposed employers' organization, but which was apparently intended to keep employees from acting through agents not liable to discharge the positions taken were eminently moderate and will doubtless secure the assent of employers everywhere. When this statement had been agreed upon, a resolution was adopted calling for the

united action of all employers in labor matters, and authorizing the officers of the Manufacturers' Association to bend their energies toward the creation of a permanent central organization representing employers of all kinds to serve as "a clearing-house for ideas, and provide means for co-operation on matters of common interest." This action is one of decided importance, even if it proves to be nothing more than a declaration of spirit. It is not true, of course, that to-day labor is organized and capital unorganized. Unorganized labor outnumbers organized, even in manufacturing industries, while corporate capital far exceeds individual capital. Furthermore, the labor organization has a weak control upon the labor of the individual member compared with that which the corporation has upon the capital of the individual member. Even when unorganized, capitalists from time immemorial have been quicker to act together than laborers. The need of the central organization of capitalists, therefore, is less than the Manufacturers' Association seems to declare. Nevertheless, the excessive use of the boycott by labor organizations must tend to create a counter-organization able to use the same weapon. It is right and honorable for organized laborers themselves to insist upon purchasing goods made under union conditions, but we fail to see what right they have to attempt to coerce others to take the same action.

Indiana's

The Indiana Supreme Weekly Pay-Day Law Court has overthrown Overthrown the weekly pay-day law enacted by the last Legislature, and overthrown it, according to the despatches, on the broad ground that the Legislature may not thus restrict the freedom of contract between employer and employee. It is possible, of course, that some clause in the Indiana Constitution necessitated this decision, and made unconstitutional in Indiana just such a law as Massachusetts has had for years, to the increasing and now general satisfaction of employers as well as employees. If there is such a clause, however, its presence is greatly to be regretted, for the weekly payment of wages tends to overthrow the custom of buying on credit, which, as President Hadley showed long

ago, when he was Labor Commissioner of Connecticut, leads not only to extravagant purchases and uncollectable debts, but also to higher prices to all careful and honest purchasers. Freedom of contract is no more an unlimited right than freedom of conduct. Indiana, for example, forbids contracts calling for more than eight per cent. interest, on the ground that they are injurious to the borrower. If the State may forbid such contracts, how much more should it be able to forbid contracts by which the wages of laborers shall not be promptly paid them. As a rule, such contracts are not made by laborers when they are free to reject them, and it naturally seems to the laborers a mockery of their freedom to declare that the State is not free to prevent contracts hurtful not only to themselves but to storekeepers and to the general public.

Dissolved

The Circuit Court A Plumbers' Combination of Missouri has issued an order dissolving the Association of Master Plumbers of St. Louis. It was proven in court that the Association had prevented the sale of plumbers' supplies by local companies to any plumbers not members of the Association. The Court held that this was plainly a combination in restraint of trade, having for its object the monopolizing of the plumbing business in St. Louis. The Court made a sharp and valid distinction between the rights of an individual to do certain things and the rights of an association to do them. An individual plumbing supply concern, it held, may refuse to sell supplies to any individual plumber; but a combination of concerns to keep him from buying supplies is a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The doctrine is as old as the common law, but it has been boldly ignored of late years both by combinations of employers and combinations of employees. In Chicago, for example, it has been simultaneously ignored by both these combinations in agreements between them to prevent the use of building materials prepared by concerns outside the city. Any individual employer may buy materials where he pleases, and any individual workman may limit himself to the use of any materials he pleases, but the combination of ten thou

sand employers and employees to limit the use of materials may be as dangerous to the prosperity of the community as the combination of ten thousand men to go armed through the streets may be to its peace. The combinations in the building trades to prevent purchases from outside the city are plainly aimed to create a monopoly and force the community to pay prices fixed thereby. The right to combine, whether of labor or capital, must be restricted to the right to combine for ends consistent with the public welfare.

The Irish National Convention

The Convention held last week at Dublin was as truly representative a meeting of the Irish National League as has yet taken place. The speeches were full of Celtic rhetorical exuberance, with the exception of the notably restrained statements made by Mr. John Redmond, who presided. He kept order impassively, and "like Parnell," as an old Nationalist said. He strongly urged on the Convention the acceptance of the Land Bill now before the British Parliament; and, after a number of amendments had been offered, the Convention, by a unanimous vote, accepted the bill in principle, intrusting to Mr. Redmond and the other Irish Nationalists in the House of Commons the task of securing that "serious amend ment in various points of vital importance" which the Convention considered essential. It is unlikely that all of the amendments will be accepted by the Government; but some of them may be incorporated in legislation, especially as the Convention is to be succeeded by a conference to consider them, at which both landlords and tenants will be represented. The chief conferees are to be Lords Dunraven and Mayo, Messrs. Shawe-Taylor, Russell, Redmond, and O'Brien. To Americans the most interesting of the amendments proposed was that brought forward by Mr. Michael Davitt, who has sometimes been called the most irreconcilable of all irreconcilables, providing that the principle of the American Homestead Law be introduced into the Land Bill" to safeguard the peasants from the results of improvident borrowing and from the operation of land-grabbers and landjobbers." Mr. Davitt's adherence to the

principle of the Land Bill was particularly fortunate, since he had the power to divide the delegates into two bitterly opposing camps. Instead of fomenting opposition, Mr. Davitt made an impassioned address, in which he voiced his undying hatred of Irish landlords, and also his doubt as to whether they would settle down and help in the development of Ireland after the passage of the Land Bill. Even as amended, he maintained that the bill would not put an end to the land struggle. He may be right, but if it should put an end to only half the struggle it would be well worth passing.

Balkan Unrest

Last week's events in the Turkish provinces of Macedonia and Albania were of an extremely disquieting nature. In the first province there were several desperate attempts on the part of the Bulgaro-Macedonian brigand bands to surround isolated and small groups of Turkish soldiers, in return for which the Turks blotted out whole villages, massacring the men and violating the women. In Albania the Commission sent by the Sultan to appease the wild mountaineers failed to secure their adhesion to the reform scheme of the Powers, except on the condition that the Albanians be allowed to choose their own Governors and civil officials, and that other minor concessions be granted to them. As an indication of the Sultan's fear of the Albanians (his personal body-guard at Constantinople is composed of them), the murderer of the Russian Consul stationed at Mitrovitsa, in North Albania, was condemned to an imprisonment of but fifteen years; on Russia's protest, however, he has now been condemned to capital punishment. The Porte has concentrated large bodies of troops in both Macedonia and Albania, and it would seem, from appearances, that there may be some desire to carry out the reforms insisted on by the Powers as to the police, tax officials, and the proper use of tax funds. Appear ances, however, are deceitful; at all events, the outrages, whether due to Turkey or Bulgaria, which have occurred in the disturbed regions since the Sultan's accept ance of the programme imposed upon him, have now been sufficient to convince Russia and Austria that new joint notes

are necessary. Accordingly, on Saturday of last week they were presented at Constantinople and at Sofia, the Bulgarian capital. Turkey was informed that the Albanian disturbances must be effectively and speedily suppressed, while Bulgaria was warned not to encourage in any way the Macedonian movement. Though the Russian and Austrian notes acknowledge that Turkey is endeavoring to carry out the administrative part of the reforms, they declare that sufficiently prompt and energetic measures against the Albanians have not been adopted. Regarding Bulgaria, the note asserts that the old connection between the Government at Sofia and the revolutionary bands has not ceased. Hence the notes are intended as a warning to both Governments to take a more serious view of their responsibilities.

The Attitude

As the Constantino

of Russia and Austria ple note is directed against the Albanians, for whom the Russian newspapers not unnaturally accuse Austria of entertaining friendliness, it is important as furnishing Austria with an opportunity to show a regard for Russia which has not been evident since 1878, when, with the help of the other Powers, particularly England, the Russo-Turkish treaty of San Stefano was torn up by the International Congress at Berlin, and a new agreement, now known as the Treaty of Berlin, was substituted. The Treaty of San Stefano guaranteed autonomy and practical freedom to Macedonia, a freedom similar to that now enjoyed by Bulgaria. San Stefano is a little place only fifteen miles from Constantinople, and the Russo-Turkish war of 1877 had brought the victors within easy striking distance of the city founded by Constantine. Russian resources had, however, been somewhat exhausted, and the Powers, Austria and England in particular, jealous of Russia's sudden acquirement of a sphere of influence extending over most of the Balkan Peninsula, decided that some of that influence must be curtailed. For this curtailment the Macedonians have unjustly suffered. It is not to be denied that Bulgarian civilization leaves much to be desired; but, at all events, it is a great improvement on Muslim tyranny. For the present