with the trade which Americans now enjoy in Russia. . . . Anyhow, it would become impossible to put us off any longer with a promise of investigation, . . . as Russia has been doing for the last forty years.

Another method of dealing with the situation in addition to abrogating the treaty of 1832 would be also to abrogate the extradition treaty of 1887 between the United States and Russia, which, says the Minneapolis "Journal" (Ind. Rep.), is "far more advantageous for Russia than for us, since it enables the Czar to pursue and apprehend fugitives whose real offenses are political whenever non-political crimes can be successfully alleged against them. Moreover," adds the "Journal," "the Russian police-spy system would be greatly handicapped were this country to become an inviolable asylum for Russian fugitives by the abrogation of the convention "-the treaty.

Of course, certain resentment and even reprisals in Russia must be expected. That well-informed and well-balanced recorder of current events, the Paris " Temps," says that our abrogation of the treaty, followed, as now seems certain, by fiscal reprisals in Russia, will constitute the first event seriously to compromise the generally good relations established by President Roosevelt's action in the circumstances attendant upon the Treaty of Portsmouth. The "Temps praises President Taft's skillful handling of the question, but thinks the negotiations for a new treaty will prove to be difficult, as electioneering interests here will compel insistence on the revision of the passport regulations, while Russia will refuse to submit to foreign interference in her internal affairs.

Many Russian newspapers insist that the President unearthed the treaty as a weapon for our opposition to Russia purely for our home political purposes. To strengthen that idea Russian papers are recounting certain episodes of our Presidential campaigns. Particular attention is paid to certain American Hebrews. Mr. Schiff is painted so that he seems like an ogre to Russian orthodoxy, while the papers insinuate that the treaty abrogation was chiefly due to pressure brought to bear by such firms as Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and the Guggenheims.

What is the prospect in Russia, according to the best Russian observers ? One of them is Professor Paul Miliukov, leader of the Constitutional Democrats in the Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament. Cabling to the New York" World," Professor

Miliukov calls attention to certain perils in the situation over there:

I am glad Mr. Taft did not allow the Sulzer resolution to become operative. Its passage would have created feeling here of an American National collision with Russia, whereas Mr. Taft's step in observing the proviso within the treaty for its abrogation has kept an important and delicate affair on the rails of diplomacy. The danger of the future is that the issue is now left wide open, and if partisans agitate the matter it would then react unfavorably on the movement for Jewish equality within Russia. Certainly Americans are free to conduct the campaign as they like, but the agitation against the present situation will not help their friends here. The fact is there is no personal director of the policy on this side, but a powerful and widespread combination. The national policy champions are high office-holders throughout Russia who are strong by the force of the people's inertia. They resist an opening of the Jewish question as they resist any essential change.

The form which the Russian reprisals may take is indicated by a bill just introduced by the leaders of the Octobrist and Nationalist parties, which form a majority of the Duma. The bill would impose one hundred per cent additional tariff on dutiable imports from the United States and one hundred per cent ad valorem tax upon goods that hitherto have enjoyed free entry. The bill would become operative on December 18, 1912. In addition, the proposed measure would double the gross weight tax, established by the law of 1901, on merchandise brought into Russian ports, and would also impose a double tonnage tax. The Russians suggested all this, we suppose, without knowing that Americans, to quote the New York" Sun (Ind.), "will never swap the rights of any American citizen for commercial privileges." The Nationalists have also introduced a bill providing that all American Jews shall be excluded from Russian territory and classifying them with 'Jesuit preachers and foreign gypsies." This, the New York " Evening Post (Ind.) says, "would be worse than the insulting treatment which the Russian Government protested against in the Sulzer resolution." course these bills could not take effect before a year hence because of the continuance until that time of the present treaty with its favored nation clause. We note that the" Rech' advises the Government not to follow the counsel of 66 the Nationalistic thunderers."

Of

The Russian Government's position is thus outlined in an interview by its Minister of Foreign Affairs:

Russia can by no means grant privileges with regard to passports to those Jewish elements

There is hardly a nation in the world with which the United States has not had difficulties on that score, and, in spite of the naturalization treaties concluded during the last forty years with European powers, of which Russia is not one, the European view of the subject differs so fundamentally from our own as to leave the door still open for misunderstanding. . . . There being no naturalization treaty between the United States and Russia, the respective rights of the citizens of the two countries rest on international law and comity, except in so far as they have been defined in the treaty of 1832, which was primarily a treaty of commerce and navigation.

As an indication of Russia's preparation for the framing of a new treaty we have a paragraph from the President's recent Message to Congress :

I believe that the Government of Russia is addressing itself seriously to the need of chang ing the present practice under the treaty, and that sufficient progress has been made to warrant the continuance of those conferences in the hope that there may soon be removed any justification of the complaints of treaty violation now prevalent in this country.

To this end, as the Boston "Transcript adds,

Fortunately we are represented at St. Petersburg now by an Ambassador [M. Curtis Guild] whose Americanism is beyond question and whose prestige gives him power in efforts to bring Russian statesmen to apply the rule of enlightenment to their relations with the United States.

A CORRECTION

Many readers will already have noticed an error in the article written by Professor Edward R. A. Seligman and published in The Outlook of December 30 last under the title "Everybody's Money." By this error the author was made to say: "The elasticity which is lacking in the present system is secured by the provision that any notes of the reserve association in circulation in excess of nine hundred million dollars which are not covered by an equal amount of lawful money held by it shall be taxed at the rate of one and one-half per cent for the excess up to twelve millions, and five per cent for the excess over twelve millions." In the last two clauses, instead of "twelve millions read "twelve hundred millions."-THE EDITORS.

'My brother introduced you when you spoke at Indianapolis last summer," breaks in another.

"I have heard you twice and voted for you three times-glad to meet you personally at last," comes a third.

And so it goes, day in, day out-all the time the urbane, courteous Bryan, extending friendly greetings, often with apt anecdote or reminiscence.

At last curiosity and interest are satisfied and the passengers return to their magazines and newspapers.

"If any person in this country is thoroughly in touch with all sections and all classes, it is yourself," I suggested.

Mr. Bryan settled back on the seat and gazed at the flying landscape.

"And we all are unconsciously asking ourselves, What is the greatest problem of the Nation to-day? What do you consider it?"

He did not reply for a moment. Then, in crisp, clear-cut expression: "Protection of the people from exploitation at the hands of predatory corporations."

"That is rather general," I commented. "The average man does not see just where it touches him."

"It does touch the average man. It affects the entire public in three ways: through the tariff, the trusts, and the railway question. High tariff lays a burden on the masses of the people for the benefit of protected industries. Through high tariff rates

enormous sums are extracted from the pockets of the producers of wealth and turned over to the beneficiaries of the protective system. The trust question is a natural outgrowth of the tariff. Corporations combine and take advantage of the protection given by high tariff laws. The advocates of protection used to argue that competition at home would protect the public from extortion, even though import duties were high."

"But many tariff schedules were not used," I interrupted.

"It is not a sufficient answer to say that tariff rates not used are not needed; they are an invitation to combinations in the restraint of trade. The trust question has therefore aggravated the tariff question and made it more acute by increasing the burden imposed by high duties. The matter of the railways is independent of the other two, but the men at the head of our railway corporations are largely interested in trusts and protected industries. In fact, the tariff question is largely a question of railway rates. The same

group of financiers is found back of every evil in our National economics that demands a remedy. And that is why it is so difficult to accomplish anything in the way of reform. When you touch one evil you touch all, and those who reap the profit from these evils are united against any and all remedial legislation."

66

'What would you do-legislate without reference to the immediate effect on the business of the country? Is not the present condition evidence of a conflict between politics and business?"

Mr. Bryan did not hesitate. "Well," he replied, "possibly two kinds of business may be affected by the fear of hostile legislationbusiness that rests on favors and business that rests on practices we should prohibit. Industries that enjoy high tariff may be nervous because of prospective reduction, and trusts may be uneasy because of a prospect of

anti-trust legislation. I do not know to what extent fear on the part of those two lines of business may be responsible for the dullness in trade charged by our industrial oracles, but the people should not be denied relief merely because remedial legislation will necessitate some readjustment. Surely those who profit by injustice are not in a position to make such a plea.

"I do not know," he added, "of any natural cause for hard times, or even for a period of waiting trade and uneasiness concerning the future. Prices have been rising throughout the world. Crops have been good. Reasons that ordinarily account for business depression do not account for whatever dullness may be observed at present. There are artificial as well as natural causes for panics. The control of the money of commerce is now so concentrated that a few big men may bring pressure to bear on our entire business community. I am satisfied that this pressure was employed in 1893 to coerce Congress into repealing the purchasing clause of the Sherman Law. Possibly it is employed now to frighten the country into an acceptance of the Aldrich currency scheme." But, Mr. Bryan, is it not generally conceded that our banking system is inadequate to our needs and that we should make some improvement that would fit it to our business conditions?"

66

"That may be true, but the Aldrich plan is not an improvement. I am satisfied from observing the conduct of financiers that the Aldrich scheme is not intended to help people generally, but is a plan whose sole object is to give big financiers more complete control of the business situation. I believe that protection to depositors will do much more to prevent a panic than any currency scheme."

Mr. Bryan was an early advocate of the guarantee of bank deposits. The Oklahoma plan is largely his idea. Yet Oklahoma has levied over three-quarters of a million dollars in paying depositors in failed banks since its guarantee law was put in operation. I recalled this, and added, "You favor this despite Oklahoma's rather stormy experience ?"

"Oklahoma's experience has not been stormy," declared Mr. Bryan, straightening up to defend his favorite theory. "You must remember that the public hears a great deal more through the press and the financial papers of instances where the bankers lose than they do where the depositors lose. While I think the Oklahoma scheme, which is being tried in substance by Texas, Kansas, and Nebraska, is

business man may know when he violates the law. The Democratic plan is a license for corporations which control twenty-five per cent of a total product. This would leave unmolested nearly all corporations engaged in legitimate business. Only a few-probably not more than three or four hundred in the entire country-would have to take out a license. These licensed corporations would be supervised by Federal authority and prevented from employing business methods usually employed by the trusts. It is sug

gested that a maximum of fifty per cent be made-that is, that no corporation should be permitted to control more than half of the total product. This would leave the remaining fifty per cent to be controlled by one or more corporations, thus establishing competition."

"Are these percentages a matter of faith, a matter of doctrine, or of suggestion?" I remembered Mr. Bryan's tendency to make positive declarations, and it was interesting to sce that he was willing to modify the statement.

"The percentages are not so important as the principle," said he. "We might commence with high or low percentages and change later as experience suggests; but as the power of monopoly depends on the percentage of control, the percentage would seem to be the thing to be considered. Legislation based merely on the size of the corporation would not reach the desired end, for a corporation with a capital of only $10,000,000 might absolutely control one product, while a corporation of $100,000,000 capital might not be able to control another." Probably no one political feature is so much discussed the country over as the possible alliance in the next campaign of the Progressive Republicans and the Democrats. I was curious to see how Mr. Bryan looked at the proposition.

"We hear a great deal about Progressive Republicans; is there such a thing as a Progressive Democrat?" I began.

It is hardly fair to compel a Progressive Democrat to designate himself by an adjective," was the reply, with a firmness that indicated his own position. "The Democratic party itself is progressive. The Democrat who is not progressive is a reactionary. It is different with the Republican party; it is a stand-pat organization. The Republican who rebels against the do-nothing policy of his party properly calls himself Progressive' or Insurgent.'"

"Is there any difference between the Pro