Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

between the courts and the people, was the subject of prolonged discussion and of resolutions passed by the Association. We await the receipt of an official report of these resolutions before making comment upon them.

Another Disturbance in Secretary Wilson's Department

Trouble, like a cloud, seems to hang over the Department of Agriculture. The Pinchot Ballinger controversy involved it in turmoil. The Wiley case, affecting the enforcement of the Pure Food Law, revealed to the public the state of disorganization and conflict within the Department that deprived it of a measure of public confidence. Now a Committee of Congress-the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Agriculture-has made report regarding an investigation it has been conducting on the work of the Department in relation to the drainage of the Florida Everglades. This Committee has been holding hearings for some time and has collected a large amount of testimony. Its report, however, is very brief. It consists of two parts, one expressing views of the majority, signed by Mr. Moss, the Chairman, and two others; the other, representing the views of the minority, signed by Mr. Sloan, with the reported concurrence of the other two minority members. There are two great classes of reclaimable waste lands in the United States. One of these classes consists of the lands which cannot be cultivated for lack of water. Immense tracts of such lands have been held by the Government and are now reclaimed or in the process of reclamation by means of vast irrigating projects. The other lands are those which are useless because they are largely submerged by water. These lands can be reclaimed by a process just opposite to that of irrigation-namely, drainage. Unfortunately, these swamp lands were allowed years ago to pass out of the hands of the Federal Government into the hands of the several States. It is of course obvious that the Government of a single State is much weaker than the Government of the Nation. It is less able to deal with such enormous undertakings as are involved in the drainage of such stretches of submerged lands; and it is much less competent to cope with the great powers of special private interests that see in such lands opportunities for speculative enterprise. The Florida Everglades provide

Companies

a striking example of this fact. organized for the purpose of exploiting these lands in Florida seized upon certain statements issued under the approval of the Drainage Division of the Department of Agriculture and circulated them in order to stimulate the sale of these lands before they had been drained. It transpired that these statements were made by the official in charge of the field investigations that had been carried on by the Department, but had not been critically examined by the authorities of the Department. The report from which these statements were culled was therefore held up. As a consequence there was an immediate protest from the people who were interested in these lands. The investigation of the Committee has now apparently shown that Mr. Wright, the official who made these statements on the part of the Government, was financially interested in these lands. This was several years ago. Mr. Wright has for some time now ceased to be connected with the Government. The Committee is divided in opinion concerning the relation which Assistant Secretary Hays holds to this affair. The majority cite facts which indicate that he knew about Mr. Wright's transactions, and that he himself, though not financially profiting by any transactions in the lands, took part in negotiations concerning those lands. The minority report defends Assistant Secretary Hays, and cites testimony to show that he did not know of Mr. Wright's connection, and that he is in no wise culpable. One other subject is considered in this report-namely, the methods used to meet a deficit in one of the subdivisions of the Department. The majority of the Committee believe that, though the methods used to meet that deficit were not justified, the two men who have been subjected to discipline because of these methods were unjustly treated. The minority do not deny this, but they do deny the authority of the Committee to express its opinion on this subject. There are two conclusions which the ordinary reader will draw from the report. One is that, coming after other revelations, this one confirms the impression that the Department of Agriculture is not, and has for some time not been, efficiently controlled or administered as a whole. The other conclusion is that this report emphasizes the folly of the Government in handing those swamp lands over to the State, and provides for the wise legislator and for the intelligent citizen a

[graphic]

are now imperiled," thus confirming the statement of our Minister at Managua. At Corinto the many foreigners, including all their women and children, have sought refuge on our naval vessels, and the town is policed by all the available men from those ships. The expected arrival of the cruisers California, Colorado, Cleveland, and Denver, with their marines, may convince doubters that our Government is in earnest in protecting our citizens and its property abroad, especially when threatened by such barbarity as now reigns in Nicaragua. According to late information, one reason why General Mena attempted to overthrow the Nicaraguan Government was because he fancied that

[ocr errors]

It

ours did not mean business" regarding its insistence upon the preservation of peace, the protection of our citizens and property, and respect for the pledges of our convention with Nicaragua, requiring an open election of the successor of President Diaz. is now proposed that this election shall be properly guarded by our armed forces. Whether this be necessary or not, the Monroe Doctrine implies our moral responsibility for the conduct of the Latin-American republics, and, of them all, none has been more incorrigibly turbulent than Nicaragua.

With the payment last week The Alsop Claim of a large amount to the Alsop claimants, attention is again drawn to international arbitration. Several years ago the Alsop claims threatened the friendly relations of the United States and Chile. The firm of Alsop & Co. was an American concern. It dealt in guano, hides, and minerals. It did business in Peru, Bolivia, and Chile. Thirty years ago these three nations were involved in war, in which some of the company's property was destroyed. In consequence, the company made claims against the three Governments. Bolivia and Peru settled with the company; but Chile did not, on the ground that the claims had to do with certain lands which meanwhile had been ceded outright by Bolivia to Chile. Thereupon the firm of Alsop & Co., by virtue of the American citizenship of its members, demanded our Government's support. Its defense seemed within our Government's right certainly this had been accentuated by the firing by some Chilean enthusiasts on members of the crew of the United States gunboat Yorktown at Santiago, the principal

It

Chilean port. Our Government proposed arbitration by the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague, but this was not welcomed by the Chilean Government. finally consented to refer the claims to the good offices of Edward VII, King of England, as arbitrator, or, as the French have it, "amiable compositeur." On the King's death the dispute was submitted to his successor, George V. Last month, acting on the report of Lord Desart, Lord Robson, and Mr. Hurst, whom he had designated to study the case, King George pronounced his award, assigning a sum about one-third as much as the original amount of the claim to the Alsops in full settlement. The news was received here with much satisfaction, not only because of the decision itself, but also because the British Government had enabled ours to dispose of the only disputed question outstanding with Chile. The case is generally interesting as being one of the few nowadays for which the good offices of the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague were not successfully invoked. Chile, though evidently willing to have the matter settled by arbitration, would not accede to our Government's request to submit the case to the Hague Court. Doubtless the Chileans thought that they might come off with better grace by submitting to more old-fashioned and more elastic arbitral methods. At all events, Latin-American pride seemed ruffled at a suggestion of The Hague's supposedly sterner justice. The old order naturally persists, especially among emotional peoples.

The Hague Court's Record

If the Alsop case calls attention to the Hague Court, it also calls attention to what that Court has accomplished since its establishment in 1902 following favorable action by the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 in authorizing its creation. Powers in controversy may establish special tribunals or mixed commissions, or, as in the Alsop case, may refer the case to a single arbiter. But if they choose the Hague Court, they must choose the judges from its general panel or list. To that list each signatory Power may contribute, if it likes, as many as four persons, to be appointed for a period of six years. From among these members of the permanent Court each party in dispute appoints an arbitrator. The two arbitrators choose an umpire. If they do not agree,

each of them proposes two candidates taken from the list of the members of the permanent court, exclusive, of course, of the members appointed by either of the parties, and not being "nationals" of either of them. The manner of determining the choice of an umpire from these candidates is by lot. The umpire presides over the tribunal, which gives its decisions by a majority vote. The first case was that of our Government versus the Mexican in the "Pious Funds of the Californias " controversy. We won. The second case was that of Germany, Great Britain, and Italy versus our Government, the French, Dutch, and others in the Venezuela blockade case, in which the right of preference was claimed by the first-named Powers, which had blockaded Venezuelan ports. They won. The next case was that of Germany, France, and Great Britain versus Japan on the question of Japanese house taxes. The three Powers wcn. The fourth case was between Great Britain and France with regard to their respective treaty rights in Muscat in Arabia. Great Britain won on the main point. The fifth case was between Germany and France with regard to deserters from the army of occupation at Casablanca, Morocco. The decision left honors easy with each side. The sixth case was between Norway and Sweden with regard to their maritime frontier. Sweden won. The seventh case was between ourselves and Great Britain with regard to the Newfoundland fisheries and the interpretation of the treaty of 1818. We won on most of the points. The eighth case was between ourselves and Venezuela in the case of the Orinoco Steamship Company. We won. The next case was between Great Britain and France concerning the arrest of Savarkar, a Hindu. Great Britain won. The next case was between Russia and Turkey concerning arrears of interest on Russian indemnity. The award has not yet been rendered. The eleventh case was between Italy and Peru concerning the so-called Canevaro claims. Peru won. The latest case before the Court is between France and Italy, and concerns the seizure by the latter during the Turco-Italian war of three French ships. The court to inquire into this seizure has only recently been formed. We learn from an interesting statement just put forth by the "World Peace Foundation of Boston that a thirteenth trial will shortly come before the Hague Tribunal. The contestants are Russia and Japan. Last year, it appears,

[graphic]

when the Russian Government determined to extend the boundary of its territorial waters in the Sea of Okhotsk-east of Siberia and north of Japan-the Japanese Government immediately lodged a protest. The question, it appears, has now become so acute that three Japanese cruisers have been sent to the north. Without the Hague Court this controversy might have serious consequences. In view of past international dissensions the record of the Hague Court is impressive.

The Political Campaign

In the political campaign last week Governor Wilson invaded Pennsylvania and Mr. Roosevelt Vermont, while Governor Marshall and a number of other Democratic campaigners were busy in Maine. While Mr. Roosevelt was making a hundred-and-fifty-mile automobile journey through the Green Mountain State, speaking to attentive and enthusiastic crowds, Governor Wilson went into the Keystone State to make a speech at the picnic of the members of the State Grange. On his way to and from Williams Grove, where the picnic was held, he was compelled by large and expectant crowds to make a number of subsidiary talks. In his speech to the Grangers Mr. Wilson declared that, whether he was elected or not, he was going to have just as much fun one way as the other. continued:

I would like to have the fighting advantage that that great office would give me, but, having been born of a fighting breed, I do not have to have the office to do the fighting. I have enlisted for life, and I do not have to be an officer. I can shoot just as straight as a private. Moreover, I was born of a talkative race, and the only thing necessary in our day is to bring the facts out in the open and talk about them frankly.

He reminded his hearers that when he was running for Governor in New Jersey he told the people that, while he did not know what he would be able to do when he got in, there was one thing he could promise them: "Only let me inside and I will tell you everything that is going on in there." Governor Wilson declared that instead of conducting the National business along the lines laid down by Jefferson, as Americans had supposed they were doing, as a matter of fact they have been conducting it along the lines laid down by Hamilton. The leaders of the Republican party, he said, "have called into consultation in every vital matter only those who had the biggest material stake in the economic

development of the country. These men financed party campaigns and were always on the inside when party policy was to be determined. . . Everything went as they suggested, while the rank and file of us fared. as we might and were happy if we had any small share in the prosperity which they organized for themselves. They were the trustees, we were their wards and took part in the common life as they planned and directed. What went on in the trustees' meeting we were very seldom allowed to learn-learn, indeed, only by impertinent inquiry, only by Congressional investigations or trials in court, which the trustees complained sadly interfered with the regular course of business." Governor Wilson declared that the whole method and spirit of conducting our Government should be changed, that the people should insist on being actual partners again and upon knowing how their business is being conducted and in whose interest. In referring to the tariff, which he has made perfectly evident that he considers the most vital issue in the campaign, Mr. Wilson gave an adroit turn to a phrase which Mr. Roosevelt has used in many speeches. Mr. Roosevelt has repeatedly said that what he was after was a better distribution of the prize money." Governor Wilson in his speech said that Mr. Roosevelt has proclaimed himself a convert to the protective policy, has also said that, while no doubt some duties were too high, on the whole the policy pursued by Republican Administrations had been the right one, and "thought the prize money which had been received under that system by the manufacturers of the country was legitimate booty." Mr. Wilson continued:

[ocr errors]

66

Prize money is generally acquired by capture and not by any process of earning, but Mr. Roosevelt is always frank and says that his only objection to the system is that too much of the

[ocr errors]

prize money" remains in the hands of the officers and too little of it is distributed to the crew. His own object he avows to be to see to it that more of the prize money gets into the pay envelopes of those whom the freebooters employ. The interesting point I wish to raise now is, Who supplies the plunder? From whom is the prize money taken? I suspect that a vast proportion of it comes out of the pockets of the farmer, unwillingly enough no doubt, but inevitably, for I see in him that great helpless class, the unbenefited "consumer.'

[ocr errors]

Governor Wilson has put his finger on what is unquestionably the chief danger in a protective tariff. The difficulty is that as long

as the tariff is a matter of international" tariff wars," no country can disregard the need of seeing that it gets its share of the benefits of the protective policy, and it should not ignore its duty in seeing that those benefits are justly distributed.

Congress

The second session of the Sixtysecond Congress began on December 4, 1911; it ended on August 26, 1912. It lasted 267 days. Only seven times before in our history has a session exceeded it in length. The Sixty-second Congress is Republican in the Senate and Democratic in the House. Much of the legislation passed at this session is good; some is bad. The more important measures which are to be classed as good include:

The Children's Bureau Act.

The Direct Election of Senators Amendment.

The Phosphorus Match Act.
The Parcels Post Act.

The Russian Treaty resolution.

The Eight-Hour Government Work Act. The Federal Regulation of Wireless Companies Act.

The Wireless Operators Act.

The Alaskan Civil Government Act.
The Industrial Bureau Act.
The Fur Seals Act.

Amendment to Food and Drugs Act.
The Panama Act.

The Act against prize-fight moving pictures. The Act to prevent filibustering on the Mexican border.

Several good laws for the army and navy. To offset these, there are few pieces of legislation against which to write the word. bad" save emphatically the Sherwood Pension Act. The events on the 66 bad" side are mostly sins of omission, not of commission. Congress's sins of omission are its failures

66

To pass needed tariff legislation.
To pass needed trust legislation.
To pass needed monetary legislation.
To pass needed naval legislation.
To abolish the involuntary servitude of

seamen.

To pass a workmen's compensation bill. To extend agricultural education.

To act on the President's civil service recommendations.

The record of the session on the tariff may be summed up in the following results:

A Wool Bill and a Steel Bill passed Con

gress, were vetoed, and were repassed by the House but not by the Senate.

The Chemical Bill was killed in the Senate. The Cotton Bill died in conference.

The Sugar Bill passed by the House was rejected by the Senate; and the Sugar Bill passed by the Senate was blocked in conference by the House.

The Excise Tax Bill, to replace the revenue to be lost if the House Sugar Bill had passed, died in conference.

More than a hundred thousand dollars has been actually expended, and as much more appropriated, by the House in a programme of investigation.

Economy-of a Kind, and Riders of all Kinds

66

[blocks in formation]

statements of its leaders, set out to make a record for economy. But we doubt very much if the means which it adopted to this end will commend themselves to the country at large. They included depriving the navy of a battle-ship, attempting to cut down the army, trying to eliminate some necessary bureaus in the Department of State, parsimony in making appropriations for the Government service, and abolishing the bi-partisan Tariff Board. On the other hand, the Democrats did not hesitate to pass a dollar-aday service pension law involving additional expenditure of about $75,000,000, afterwards reduced by the Senate to $25,000,000 annually. The record of this session was further marked by an unprecedented use of "riders." The 'rider" involves an endeavor to get through legislation, by attaching it to another piece of legislation, which could not be passed if the attempt were made to pass it by itself. Riders were attached to the appropriation bills for the army, pensions, the post-office, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, and the Sundry Civil Bills. It was also the case with the Panama Bill. Some of the "riders" proposed were good, as, for instance, the parcels post provision in the Post-Office Bill and the free ships provision in the Panama Bill; and some, like the latter provision, were more cognate to the general subject of the bills to which they were attached than were others. But the principle of legislation by "rider," especially when attached to an appropriation bill, is thoroughly bad, By the courageous use by the President of the veto power, there were prevented such spiteful pieces of mischief as Congress intended to perpetrate

« PredošláPokračovať »