moral and patriotic considerations should lead a State, when it is dealing with a subject which concerns the relations of this country with another nation, to think of something more than its technical rights as a State, and to inform itself in the beginning of the views of the Government in Washington. On the other hand, of course it is equally the duty of the authorities at Washington to anticipate any such situation and to take such steps as will render State action unnecessary. Mr. Bryan's suggestions were four in number. They are summarized as follows:

1. Delay immediate action and permit the State Department to try to frame a new treaty with Japan.

2. Delay immediate action and appoint a legislative commission to investigate alien landownership and act with President Wilson in gaining relief.

3. Enact a law similar to the Illinois statute, which allows all aliens to hold land six years.

4. Enact a law similar to the Federal statute in the District of Columbia, which applies to all aliens.

In presenting these suggestions Mr. Bryan well said: " Each State in the Union acts in a dual capacity. It is the guardian of local affairs of its people and in a sense the only guardian, and yet each State is a member of the Union and one of the sisterhood of States. Therefore, in acting upon questions of local conditions, the State always recognizes that it is its duty to share the responsibility with other States in actions affecting the Nation's relations with foreign nations."

The Webb Alien Land Bill

In place of following Mr. Bryan's plea either for delay to allow for diplomacy and investigation, or for legislation which should apply to all aliens, the Legislature gave its attention to a new bill, named after its framer, Attorney-General Webb. It seems probable at this writing that the bill may become law. Its first provision is: "All aliens eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States may acquire, possess, enjoy, transfer, and inherit real property, or any interest therein, in this State in the same manner and to the same extent as citizens of the United States, except as otherwise provided by the laws of this State." The second provision reads as follows: "All aliens other than those mentioned in section 1 may acquire, possess, enjoy, and transfer real property, or any interest therein, in the manner and to the extent and for the pur

pose prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government of the United States and the nation and country of which such alien is a citizen or subject, and not otherwise." It is held by the advocates of this bill that, as it specifically guards treaty rights and also affirmatively confers rights on all aliens ineligible to citizenship, instead of debarring from existing rights those ineligible, it is free from objection or offense. The general belief is that its passage would be followed by negotiations between Japan and the United States for a new treaty to supplant the present weak and unsatisfactory treaty; it is equally probable that the new law would involve asking the United States Supreme Court for a clear and final definition of the condition of naturalization and the rights of aliens. President Wilson telegraphed to Governor Johnson his own opinion that the Webb Bill would involve an appeal to the courts on the question of treaty rights and would bring on what might be long and delicate litigation. Mr. Webb, the author of the bill, dissents from the President, holding that when a treaty expressly provides for limited ownership of land (as the present treaty certainly does) the State is within its proper sphere when it legislates on the subject in a way that recognizes the full treaty rights involved.

The Japanese in California

President David Starr Jordan, of the Leland Stanford University, thinks that the Webb Bill carries in it the sting of discrimination, and that the real issue is one of courtesy and kindliness. A published statement from Mr. Chester H. Rowell urges that there is a menace not for the present but for the future as to ownership. Mr. Rowell points to Hawaii as an cbject of what general Japanese settlement in California would mean, and declares that, with the exception of the landowners and anti-union employers, all California is opposed to it; as it is, the Japanese, he says, are the dominant element in California's migratory farm labor. As to landholding, Mr. Rowell's remarks and general conclusions are worth quoting at some length:

In the case of landholding, . . . instead of dominating anything, the Japanese are practically a negligible quantity. In two or three very limited neighborhoods they have so far invaded the country that white men are moving out. This is a picture in miniature of what might happen if there were any wholesale and continued Japanese immigration into this coun

try, and is sufficient justification for preventing at any cost such a result. But these places so far are few and small, and the Japanese authorities offer their assistance in securing the dispersion of the Japanese who tend to concentrate there. They do not, in their present dimensions, constitute anything but a local menace........ Inasmuch as ninety-nine per cent of the whole Japanese question is of necessity National and international, it would seem that those who wish to reserve the power of the Nation for vigorous and, if the emergency should ever require it, for radical action, may consistently favor conservative action by the State on that small fragment of the whole question which is within its jurisdiction.

This statement is doubly significant as it comes from a Californian who is in sympathy with the present State administration.

The Progress of the Tariff Bill

The general debate in the House of Representatives on the Underwood Tariff Bill, after lasting just two weeks, came to an end on April 28, and it was then hoped by the Democratic leaders that proposed amendments might be dealt with and a vote reached within a week or perhaps two or three days more. Then will begin the more equal and probably harder-fought struggle in the Senate. The debate in the House was, as a whole, marked rather by lively skirmishing on single points and clever repartee as between political opponents than by notable addresses based on broad economic principles. The exceptions, as might be expected, were the speeches of Mr. Underwood for the Democrats, Mr. Payne for the Republicans, and Mr. Murdock for the Progressives. Mr. Underwood showed tactical ability, tact, and force in keeping his party vote together. In reporting the measure from committee Mr. Underwood described its chief purpose as being revision which would change the tariff " to a basis of legitimate competition, such as will afford a wholesome influence on our commerce, bring relief to our people in the matter of the high cost of living, and at the same time work no detriment to properly conducted manufacturing industries." He was unable to promise immediate reduction in retail prices to the consumers, declared that the Republican theory that the tariff should represent difference of cost here and abroad was false, and advocated the imposition of high rates on luxuries and low rates or no rates on necessities as an essential part of his bill, adding "We remove the taxes at the custom-house

purposely to levy a tax on wealth. I wish my friends on the other side to understand this distinctly. When you levy your tax on consumption, the man of moderate means pays as much taxes on the clothes he wears and the food he consumes as the multimillionaire." Mr. Payne asserted that the

bill would prove a failure as a revenue-producer, defended the principles underlying Republican methods of revision, declared that the Underwood Bill copied some of the greater advances of the Payne Bill, and that the claims made for it as regards necessities and luxuries were largely demagogic. Mr. Murdock laid great stress on the secrecy with which rates were made and the lack of any real guiding principle in the absence of proper tariff commission reports. Thus he said:

All the provisions in the matter of the tariff enter into the delicately interrelated adjustments of the Nation's industrial life. Yet this task of revision, admittedly difficult, has been undertaken again with the old disregard of correct methods for the collation of accurate information and in defiance of a universal popular demand that the tariff shall be revised scientifically.

Under the guise of reducing the cost of living it may destroy the very basis of our industrial prosperity. Proposing and promising to cheapen the food and clothing of the workingman, it may take from him the very means by which he can earn his livelihood.

A Canadian Railway's

Public Spirit

In these days of fastidiousness about the behavior of of public service corporations it is a pleasure to be able to praise the Canadian Pacific Railway for adopting a policy that, for progressive public spirit as well as sheer business wisdom, is noteworthy in railway history. It has shut down tight on selling any of its lands to speculators. When the road was under construction thirty years ago, the Company got a grant of twenty-five million acres of public land in the rich prairie provinces of western Canada. Since then it has remained the only private landowner of any national consequence in Canada, except the Hudson's Bay Company, which has held about seven million acres. The Railway

Company has always been remarkably liberal with its land, selling it freely at a reasonable price, and consistently helping the bona-fide settler in every possible way. It has kept an enormous amount of capital tied up in projects for development and colonization, not merely to attract the settler to the land,

but to furnish him solid backing and assistance when he got there. But it found before long that the enterprising speculator was being attracted also, and that some of its best holdings were being picked up by non-resident individuals and syndicates and held, without development or any intention of development, for the inevitable rise in values. The Com

pany has now put a stop to this. It strictly limits the amount of land it will sell to any one person. Each land contract now contains an ironclad development clause, and also binds the purchaser to take up personal residence within six months. All mineral rights are reserved to the Company, so that there is no confusion of straight agricultural opportunity with the opportunity to get rich quickly without working, as, for instance, in the palmy days of the oil lease in western Pennsylvania. The Company disposes of the right to work minerals and timber only by separate contract and on terms which essentially accord with the general policy of the Dominion Government towards natural

resources.

Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, Radical Wisdom the President of the Canadian Pacific Railway, is in England, but in his absence Mr. J. S. Dennis, Vice-President in charge of the National Resources Department of the Railway, has given The Outlook this statement of his attitude:

We don't want a few rich gentlemen to sit in their offices in London and New York and hold our land out of use until other people's industry gives it a value that they don't earn. The capitalist-speculator is the curse of a new country. We never much minded the farmer-speculator, because as a rule he gets enough real work done on a virgin soil to pay his way; but land speculation as broadly understood is a detriment not only to the railway but to the public welfare. The public interest and the interest of the railway are identical here, because they both demand a producing population. Mere capital invested and tied up in lands means nothing to us or the public. Besides, the ownership of land is really a public trust. We don't consider that we own our land in the same sense as we own our cars, engines, and steamships, for instance, because these are products of labor and the land is not. Strictly speaking, land is always public property and can never be absolutely alienated. We think we have a right to take a reasonable profit out of land for services rendered in making it accessible, but we have always felt bound, and it has always been our policy, to administer our control of the land in the public interest, and we think this means letting it go to those who will use it instead of to those who will merely hold it out of

the market. This puts us in line with the governmental policy in many of our provinces and municipalities. They can and largely do check the speculator by their power of applying differential taxation. In the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, for instance, and in cities like Edmonton, Calgary, Victoria, and Vancouver, the land bears all taxes. There is no use in holding land for a rise, you know, if the Government steps in and appropriates the rise or a big slice of it when it comes. But, aside from all this, I repeat we are glad to help discourage speculation, because it is good business. I don't want you to think we are posing for anything but a mercenary and hard-fisted corporation. We reckon that every bona-fide settler working and producing along our line is a minimum permanent asset of $1,000 to the railway. That is the important thing to us; but at the same time we cannot help seeing that if he is worth a thousand dollars to us he must be worth at least that much to the Dominion. All of which bears strongly on the sentiment growing in this country that some of the increment of land values must somehow find its way back to the public that created it. The questions seem inevitable: If land speculation is against public welfare in Canada, why not here? If it is bad for the Canadian Pacific Railway, the greatest public service corporation in the world, why not for our railways? If a Canadian province or city can apply differential taxation to bear against idleness and speculation and in favor of industry and production, why not one of our States or cities? If the Canadian city of Edmonton can tax speculative holdings like those of the Hudson's Bay Company into use, why not New York, Chicago, or Seattle? Many of us will feel that our best thanks are due to the Canadian Pacific Railway for its surprising testimony that "what is not good for the swarm is not good for the bee." When its policy is known and analyzed by economic authorities in this country, it will no doubt be a great factor in determining for us the thing of which we chiefly stand in need, namely, a sound doctrine of public property.

If the labor conflict in PaterPrivate War son, described last week in The Outlook, reminds us constantly of the scenes at Lawrenceville, that going on in another part of New Jersey recalls the worst days of the mining troubles in Colorado or the more recent "war" in West Virginia, with its "pitched battle" and its sharpshooting. Not many miles from Dover, in Morris County, is the Mount Hope mine, the history of which dates back to the Revolution. The miners

are trying to maintain a labor union affiliated with the Western Federation of Miners. The owners of the mine will not recognize the union, and have refused an increase in wages of twenty per cent, but have been willing to yield on some minor points. Out of this apparently rather commonplace labor situation there has grown a state of affairs which seems almost incredible. One seems to be reading of some beleaguered fortress in the Balkan war. As described by a writer in the New York "Evening Post," from whose account we summarize, the two factions are in armed camps, one intrenched in a fort, the other watching and ready to attack from the outside. Searchlights at night from the fort sweep the surrounding country; a powder magazine is guarded by sentry-boxes; here and there is a pile of stones behind which lies a rifleman. Without the searchlights, says the narrator, "the Empire Steel and Iron Company could not defend its million-dollar property, with all its armed guards, from striking employees, who threaten to drop dynamite into open shaft mouths, or, rushing the buildings, demolish in similar fashion the new power plant. Rifle shots heard at intervals through the night are devoted to the same purpose." Professional strike-breakers carry on the work; bullet-proof shields protect the guards; now and then the explosion of a bomb is heard; visitors to the property, even by day, must run the risk of attacks with stones. In short, what comes very near being a state of siege between armed enemies exists. The striking miners threaten that if an attempt is made to run trains on the branch railway leading to the Company's iron and steel works, they will tear up the track and wreck the first train. If half of the vivid story told in the article to which we refer is true, the situation is not figuratively but literally a private war. To protect property is the duty of the State, not of hired troops in private pay. Our present industrial situation as revealed in this Siege of Mount Hope seems three-quarters mediæval. The settlement of disputes as to recognized unions and rates of wages ought never in a civilized country to depend upon physical force and tests of endurance between the two parties. When one reads of such a condition as this, it is to remember with envy the ease and satisfaction with which labor disputes are settled under law in distant New Zealand. Some day, perhaps, America will place herself in line with the Antipodes.

The Week at Skutari

Despite the fact that the fortress of Skutari is no longer Turkish, but Montenegrin, events there and in Albania last week were sufficiently interesting. Coincidently with the Duke of Montpensier's declination of the throne, Essad Pasha, the able defender of Skutari during six and a half months, proclaimed himself King of Albania at Alessio, the first Albanian town of importance south of Skutari. There is a certain poetry in Essad's audacious act. He is not a Turk, but an Albanian, and has a reputation for simplicity, independence, and a keen if elementary sense of justice. Like other Albanian chiefs, Essad opposed the Young Turks' repressive measures in Albania. His forces at Skutari were larger than at first reported, and to them have now been added the forces operating in Albania under Djavid Pasha, and also many independent Albanian contingents, so that Essad is reported to be in control now of nearly thirty-five thousand men. He will doubtless meet with some opposition even among the Albanians themselves, for they have always enjoyed a reputation for tribal feuds. But he may be enjoying support in a strategic quarter if the report is true that he has made an alliance with the King of Montenegro, and has offered special protection to the Orthodox or Greek Catholic Church-the church of most of the Slavs. This news, together with the Montenegrin refusal to surrender Skutari, must have been unwelcome to the Austrian Government. At all events, Austria immediately concentrated her troops on the Montenegrin frontier, and recalled from their Alpine fastnesses the flower of her army-the Tyrolese. Then Montenegro acted.

Leav

The horizontal lines in the above map show the territory which the Powers are reported to have offered to Montenegro and Servia if Skutari is given up. The little squares show the territory demanded by Montenegro

Acting on Austria's determined initiative, the Powers sent the following demand to the Montenegrin Government last week:

We have the honor to declare, collectively, to the Royal Government of Montenegro that the taking of the fortress of Skutari does not in any way modify the decision of the European Powers relative to the delimitation of the frontiers of northern and northeastern Albania, and consequently the city of Skutari must be evacuated with the briefest possible delay, and must be handed over to the European Powers represented by the commandants of the international naval forces lying before the Montenegrin coast. The Royal Government of Montenegro is invited to give a prompt reply to this communication.

The Montenegrins protested against "this unjust and cruel demand," and once more asked the Powers "to examine in an equitable manner the vital question of Montenegro's future, and to place that nation on an equal footing with the other Balkan Allies." While not consenting to yield Skutari, the Montenegrin Government suggested that, "with the greatest deference for the Powers, it reserves the right of bringing up the question of Skutari in the course of the final peace negotiations, when the Albanian boundary will be settled by the Allies and the Powers.” It is, of course, earnestly to be hoped that this boundary line may be settled without war. But the Powers might with equal

justice have demanded of Greece that she surrender the fortress of Janina, captured by her, and which in southern Albania occupies a position corresponding to Skutari in northern Albania. "Immorality" feebly describes i the conduct of Austria in demanding that Skutari be given up; and "flabbiness" but feebly expresses the attitude of the Powers in capitulating to her. The demand of the Powers is thus a means to placate Austrian ambition to have the new capital of Albania located as near as possible to her. At the same time, a highwayman is sometimes able to offer what seems an adequate offset to the spoils which he wants to grab; and in this case, as will be seen in the accompanying map, the Powers have offered to Montenegro and Servia a territory twice as large 'as Montenegro itself and containing at least three important towns, Ipek, Jakova, and Prisrend. This, however, is only a palliative. The incidents in Russia and four Austrian provinces reported by us last week show that the Skutari incident has awakened a force far greater than any one European nation, and that is the racial power of the Slavs.

The New British Ambassador

Few men have had a wider diplomatic experience, or have a more sympathetic insight into the needs of the different nations of mankind, than the new British Ambassador. He has served in China, in Turkey, in Russia, and in the United States. He was promoted to his present post from Sweden. Everywhere he has made himself the understanding friend of the people with whom he has been associated. It is not unfair to say that this attitude of his has been peculiarly marked in Sweden and the United States. Probably few men, not themselves of Swedish birth or origin, have the intimate acquaintance with and admiration of the great men and the great deeds of Swedish history that Sir Cecil Spring-Rice has. The Swedes of to-day, with their strength and their charm, the Sweden that sends forth her travelers, like Sven Hedin, across the unknown countries of the roof of the world, and her explorers in the Northern and the Southern hemispheres; the Swedes whose naturalists have ever upheld the tradition of the great Linnæus, the founder of modern botany, appeal to Sir Cecil precisely as do the mighty warriors and warrior statesmen who from the days of Gustavus Vasa to