LYMAN ABBOTT, Editor-in-Chief

Governor Sulzer of New York

None of the men inaugurated as Governors last week presents a more picturesque figure than William Sulzer. Physically he is picturesque-tall and spare, loosejointed, in form not altogether unlike the ungainly Lincoln. His face and head are described by Mr. James Creelman in the New York "Evening Mail" as "long, lean, freshcolored . . . with craggy, high cheek-bones, powerful crunching jaws, a mouth alternately loose and smiling or tight and grim, with a lump at the side made by a wad of chewingtobacco, a singularly steep forehead, and beneath its jutting brows a strong nose, incurved at the bridge and wide at the nostrils, between blue-gray eyes-sometimes the eyes of an innocent boy, sometimes the eyes of a shrewd, suspicious man; a high-crowned head, sign of an idealist or sentimentalist, thatched thickly with tawny blond hair, a wisp of which always hangs picturesquely over the forehead." He is dressed, not in the fashion of the day, but somewhat after the fashion made familiar by Western and Southern politicians during the past thirty or forty years. Thus Mr. Sulzer has been marked by an appearance certainly distinctive. Long a resident of the East Side of New York, one of the most crowded places on earth, he knows intimately, as from the inside, the lives and the manner of thought of those whom men reared in comparative ease sometimes call "the multitude populace." New York City has been made what it is by the throngs that have come from every quarter of the globe. It is, indeed, the "melting-pot." Although not a native of the East Side (he was born in New Jersey), he came to it as the others have come. It is from the East Side that he has gone as a Representative to Congress, and it is also from the East Side that he now goes to the Governor's chair at Albany. His political career and his political method are

or "the

such as might be expected from one who has shown his liking to be where people are most numerous. While other men in Congress have spoken to their colleagues, he has been among those who have used their position in Congress as an eminence to speak to as many people as possible. Under the convenient franking system in vogue he has circulated his speeches so widely that it is almost a distinction never to have received a copy. He is, or rather was until very recently, a member of Tammany Hall. Mr. Murphy, the Tammany boss, who controlled the New York State Democratic Convention last fall, never, in his career as an exceedingly able boss, proved his ability more clearly than in his course which resulted in Mr. Sulzer's nomination. Mr. Sulzer has been a loyal member of Tammany Hall, but has always identified himself with popular measures, and, in spite of ridicule directed against him by many newspapers, has always had a large following. Mr. Sulzer is identified both by his adherents and his opponents with the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

Governor Sulzer's Message

This is the sort of man who has come to the position of Chief Executive in the biggest State of the Union-a State with a greater population than the combined population of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont; a greater population, in fact, than twice the population of the entire federated commonwealth of Australia. To this office Mr. Sulzer has come with explicit promises to further progressive legislation. In his message to the Legislature delivered on January 1 he presents a programme which has been welcomed and approved by those people, without regard to party, who believe in the need for a series

of progressive measures. Governor Sulzer urges the ratification of the proposed amendment providing for the popular election of United States Senators. In urging this he puts into one sentence the answer to the fundamental objections to the progressive movement generally: "If the people cannot be trusted, then our government is a failure and the free institutions of the fathers are doomed." It is on trust in the people that he bases his recommendations. In the high cost of living he sees two elements-the increase in the cost of the necessaries of life, and the lack of a corresponding increase in wages. He urges the Legislature rather vaguely to take such action as it deems wise to reduce the cost of these necessaries : but when it comes to the question of wages, his recommendations are by no means vague. In fact, he takes up a whole line of social legislation for the improvement of the conditions of those engaged in industry. We

must now convince employers," says Governor Sulzer, "that any industry that saps the vitality and destroys the initiative of the workers is detrimental to the best interests of the State and menaces the general welfare of the Government." It is on this ground that he urges the enforcement of compulsory education, simultaneously with restrictions upon child labor. Emphatically he repudiates the need of employing children, and denies the inalienable right of any industry to child labor. No commerce that depends on child labor for its success," he declares, "has a right to exist." He recommends the establishment of legal safety standards to guard against the accidents and diseases of industry, and in particular "the establishment of municipal museums of safety and Government research and investigation." He recommends also the reorganization of the Department of Labor so that it shall have more power to investigate conditions and enforce law.

to continue its operations. Massachusetts has enacted such a law. Ohio recently adopted a constitutional amendment authorizing the State Legislature to do the same.

Governor Sulzer's intelligent emphasis on the conservation of the natural resources of the State, his pledge to the merit system in the civil service (somewhat qualified by his appointments to the State Civil Service Commission), his urgency of civil and criminal law reform, his extensive discussion of the needs of the farmers and of the necessity for promotion of agriculture and of good roads, his advocacy of the principle of home rule, though not with the needed emphasis on the right of cities to make their own charters, and his recommendations in the direction of economy, form together a coherent progressive policy. The minimum wage, which Governor Sulzer refers to, we discuss below more in detail. His message as a whole is one that accords with the temper and spirit of the people of the State. In his efforts to fulfill his promises he is entitled to the support of all who believe in progressive legislation. His message invites the opposition of such forces within his party as Tammany Hall and those conservative Democrats who are exceedingly jealous of all property rights and interests. It has called forth criticism from such papers as the New York Times," an organ of its own party, and is welcomed by the New York" Press," an organ of the Progressive party. If Governor Sulzer holds fast to the faith he has here expressed, and is able to induce the Legislature to transform this faith into works, he will become one of the leaders in the inevitable struggle between the conservative and progressive elements within his own party.

In commenting upon Governor Sulzer's recommendation of wage

What are Minimum Wage Standards? boards, the New York" Sun" furnishes in its utterances an illustration of the prevailing ignorance, even among the ordinarily intelligent, concerning this matter of minimum wage. The "Sun," which prides itself on its information and its qualifications as an instructor of mankind, says that the Governor has apparently failed to distinguish between two kinds of law, and that the Massachusetts law and the constitutional amendment in Ohio which he cited do not refer to minimum wage at all, but to compensation for injury. Such ignorance as the Sun" displays is one of the

most serious obstacles to the enactment of intelligent minimum wage laws. Of course Governor Sulzer, as the "Sun" could easily have ascertained, is right. Massachusetts has a minimum wage law, and Ohio has adopted an amendment providing, among other things, for a minimum wage law. The term "minimum wage law" is misleading. It implies a law fixing wages at a minimum. Even Mr. Wilson, as Presidential candidate, seemed to be influenced by this suggestion apparently involved in the term. A minimum wage law is, in fact, a law to prohibit or prevent wages in certain given industries from falling below a certain minimum. In other words, it sets a standard beneath which wages shall not be lowered, but above which they may be raised. It is evident that such a law is needed, particularly in those industries in which, or for those classes of workers for whom, wages are most likely to be unduly depressed. Minimum wage laws, therefore, have usually specified certain industries or classes of workers they are intended to affect. Because the wages of women in factories have shown a particularly low average and an exceedingly low minimum, the chief agitation in this country has been for a minimum wage law for women. The humanitarian impulse, too, is strong in America, and has therefore emphasized woman as a beneficiary of such a law. Thus the Progressive party platform of New York State specified a minimum wage law for women. The fact is, however, that the real motive for the establishment of a minimum wage law is not the one which the "Sun" ascribes to Governor Sulzer, "solicitude for the underpaid "at least not that primarily --but concern for the future of the country and the race. A nation which year after year and generation after generation might be subjected to the strain of war could not long endure that strain. Neither can any nation long endure what modern industrial nations are enduring the strain of an unregulated industrial system that has created a great mass of underpaid men and women. Starvation and destitution caused by underpay ment cannot be distinguished from starvation and destitution caused by war in draining the vitality of a people.

effective. None of them are new. They have followed the movement for minimum wage scales from country to country and from State to State. Each time they appear as fresh as if they had not encountered defeat. For example, the New York "Sun" warns Governor Sulzer that he is on the edge of a morass, and it apparently is entirely ignorant of the fact that the commonwealth of Australia has been floundering in that morass since 1896-is that not over sixteen years ago? And, moreover, so far from trying to escape from this morass, Australia has been wading in deeper almost year by year-since 1906, literally year by year. Moreover, Australia has not only had several chances to withdraw from the morass, but has actually found itself, on five separate occasions, emerging from it, and has deliberately turned about and gone back into it. In other words, the Minimum Wage Act of Australia was a temporary one when it was first enacted, and it has been renewed five times. It was first applied only to the clothing, shirts, and underclothing trades, and to the trades of bootmaking and baking. It would take a page of The Outlook to recount the extensions of that act to other trades. Mr. Sidney Webb, in the " Journal of Political Economy" for last month, tells of the extensions, and concludes, regarding the law, that "one is tempted, indeed, to believe that little remains now outside its scope except the agricultural occupations and domestic service." None of the predicted evils have followed the act. Employers as well as employees welcome it. It has apparently not increased the cost of production, although it has increased wages. Efficiency, however, it has increased. It has not only reduced the number of those who are on the margin of dependency, it has saved honest employers from dishonest and underhanded competition in arrangements with wage-earners. It has not prevented wholesome competition; on the contrary, it has turned the attention of managers away from competition in reducing wages to competition in increasing efficiency. Compared with the Australian law, the Massachusetts law-the only one of any State in this country—is very meager indeed. It provides for the establishment of minimum wage boards which, in the case of controversy between employers and women employees, shall determine what is a proper minimum below which the wages shall not fall. The only means of enforcing this "determination," as

it is called, is by the publication of the names of recalcitrant employers. Several States, however, are considering the question. New York is one of these. Others are Ohio, Oregon, Illinois, California, and Wisconsin. In New York the Democratic Governor and the Progressive party are both committed to a minimum wage measure: the Governor by his message, the Progressive party by its platform. Now that in New York the Democratic party, which is in power, may take up this question, we hope that the Progressive party will, first of all, express in the form of a bill its own ideal of what such a minimum wage law should be for the State, doing this either by drafting its own bill or by indorsing any bill that it regards as satisfactory; and, second, putting its weight behind any measure, whatever its source, which promises any advance toward a suitable minimum wage law.

Turning a Platform

into Law

The suggestion, made above, that the Progressive party of New York should, as a party, draft or indorse a bill for the establishment of minimum wage standards, is not one that could be made to most parties, because they have no machinery for doing So. The Progressive party, however, has established a precedent in at least three States for doing this very thing. In New York the party representatives, assembled in convention, created a committee for translating the planks of the party platform into the form of bills to be submitted to the Legislature, and for presenting before the Legislature arguments in behalf of them. This was

done also in Connecticut and in Pennsylvania. As is well known, the name "Progressive" was appropriated by opponents of the Progressive party in Pennsylvania, in order to keep the Progressive party in that State from using it. Oddly enough, however, while the Progressives in Pennsylvania were denied their name, they secured at the primaries control of the Republican party organization and a predominance in the Legislature. while in New York and Connecticut the Progressive party cannot enact this platform, in Pennsylvania it is probable that it can do so. It is merely through a confusion of nomenclature that there is presented the anomaly of a Republican State organization drafting bills to be submitted to a Legislature controlled by members of the Washington party

So,

(under which name Progressives were elected to the Legislature), in order to put into effect a Progressive platform. These bills relate to two general classes of legislation-one concerning elections and the machinery of government, including primaries; the other concerning social and industrial conditions and the control of public service utilities. On these bills public hearings have been held, and in many cases have been redrafted after being subjected to scrutiny. The bills that relate to social and economic conditions have been published, and each bill contains a foreword, or introductory note, in some cases of considerable length, explaining the purpose of the bill to which it refers. Among the specially important are those further restricting the labor of women and children. The child labor bill has been indorsed by the Child Labor Association, and the bill regulating the employment of women by the Consumers' League; and both by the Pennsylvania Federation of Labor. Although the Progressives do not hold the majority of members in the Pennsylvania Senate, they have such a large minority in that house that, with the majority they have in the lower house, they, with the help of progressive members of other parties, will probably succeed in enacting these measures. In the other States all the party can do is to introduce bills which can be presented as examples of what the party would do if it were in power, and thus serve as a support to the progressive members in the Legislature whatever their party name may be.

The Garment Workers' Strike

It is safe to say that over a hundred thousand workers in the clothing trade (some of the leaders say 140,000) are involved in the strike which began last week in New York City and its environs. The number of those who have actually gone out is in dispute, but it is put by good judges as high as 85,000. All of these strikers are makers of men's clothing; no cloakmakers or white goods workers are involved. The demands of the strikers include a working week of fortyeight hours (six eight-hour days), a minimum wage scale in some branches of the work, overtime pay at the rate of one and a half times the regular wage, and the abolition in those branches of the trade which are involved of tenement-house labor and the evils of sub-contracting. In the making of men's coats there

It is

are so many separate operations and consequently so much division of labor that the men find piece-work an oppressive method and wish to substitute pay by day or week. The fact that the several branches of the general trade have separate demands and complaints makes the issue somewhat complicated, but the principal requirements from the employees are as above stated. pointed out by the strikers that their work is seasonal in its character, and that many of the employees are unemployed or have to turn to something other than the work for which they are trained, if they are to sustain themselves through the slack season. The only way to estimate wages is by the yearly income, and this is reported to be less and less under the prevailing trade methods, while the cost of living is increasing. Both the workers and the employers have strong organizations. There seem, however, to be indications that efforts at mediation may be received favorably. A singular fact about this strike is that the workers left their shops before they made their demands and presented their grievances. Their explanation for this course is that it was a matter of industrial tactics; they felt that only by a big demonstration could they impress their employers and bring them even to consider the demands; that discussion and argument before such a demonstration would be futile and only result in delay. This may have force as a method of industrial war (just as, in international warfare, a country begins fighting before it issues its declaration of war), but the only real hope of settling industrial disputes is in compromise, conciliation, and arbitration, not in fighting to the bitter end. So far as we can judge, no real effort at peaceful settlement was made in this strike, although, as Mr. Paul Kennaday points out in a letter to the New York Times," four methods of settlement are provided under the New York law, and the State Commissioner has large powers, not amounting to compulsory arbitration, to be sure, but still such as to aid materially, if fully exercised, in settling such disputes as that now existing in the garment trade. The strike of cloakmakers in New York two years ago was one of the bitterest ever fought out, but it resulted in a mode of settling future disputes which seems to be working satisfactorily. Would not the present strikers have done well to attempt the securing of such an agreement before instead of after unemployment, distress, and ill-feeling?

How to "Save Face"

Up to last week at the London Conference between Bulgarian, Servian, Montenegrin, and Greek delegates on the one hand and Turkish on the other, there was a breach wide as Turkey itself. It is now somewhat healed by the apparent greater willingness of the Turkish delegates to come to feasible terms of peace. The first terms proposed by the allies were that Turkey should cede to them practically all of her territory in Europe. Turkey's counter-proposals were the cession of a very small part of Turkey-in-Europe, accompanied, however, by certain enlarged commercial and other privileges. But, by the terms of the latest Turkish offer, as reported, a large part of Turkey-in-Europe is to be surrendered. Turkey, it appears, would retain, according to this proposal, most of the province of Thrace, including, of course, the fortress of Adrianople, about a hundred and forty miles north of Constantinople. For sentimental and strategic reasons Turkey regards Adrianople as her most precious European possession outside of the capital city itself. Macedonia-the central province lying between Thrace in the east and Albania on the west-would be ceded to the allies. Albania would be turned over to the Powers, to be erected into an entirely autonomous State, provided the Sultan is left as suzerain over it. With regard to the Egean Islands, however, Turkey announces that, as they are not a part of Turkey-in-Europe, but a part of Turkey-in-Asia, they have nothing to do with the present plans! This is an ingenious "bluff." Most of the islands do lie off the Asian coast. But, as a matter of fact, some important ones are close to Europe—Thasos, Samothrace, Imbros, and Lemnos, for instance. These, together with Tenedos off the Asian shore, are of vital strategic value, for they guard the entrance to the Dardanelles Straits, leading from the Egean Sea to Constantinople and the Black Sea. In the same way, of the islands off the Asian coast, Mitylene and Chios are important, as they lie on either side the entrance to the Gulf of Smyrna-and the port and city of Smyrna form the largest shipping and commercial center in Asia Minor. All of the

gean Islands have now been captured by Greece except the twelve still in Italy's hands as the result of the Italo-Turkish War. Those who regard the islands' transfer as inevitable have suggested that, to "save face," Turkey might cede all of them to