essential rights must expect to be checked and called to account by direct challenge and resistance.

Perhaps we will be pardoned if we find in Mr. Wilson's statement of his theory of action and the record of the still unsatisfied claim against Germany for the sinking of the Lusitania an inconsistency which the President would doubtless feelingly deny. There seems to us a further inconsistency between his statement that "we have been entirely neutral . . . because we have no part either of action or of policy in the influences which brought on the present war," and his own later statement that no nation can any longer remain neutral as against any willful disturbance of the peace of the world. . . No nation stands wholly apart in interest when the life and interests of all nations are thrown into confusion and peril."

To us this seems the nobler doctrine, and this doctrine Mr. Wilson himself claims will be the guiding principle of the future. He says:

There must be a just and settled peace, and we here in America must contribute the full force of our enthusiasm and of our authority as a Nation to the organization of that peace upon world-wide foundations that cannot easily be shaken. No nation should be forced to take sides in any quarrel in which its own honor and integrity and the fortunes of its own people are not involved; but no nation can any longer remain neutral as against any willful disturbance of the peace of the world. The effects of war can no longer be confined to the areas of battle. No nation stands wholly apart in interest when the life and interests of all nations are thrown into confusion and peril. If hopeful and generous enterprise is to be renewed, if the healing and helpful arts of life are indeed to be revive l when peace comes again, a new atmosphere of justice and friendship must be generated by means the world has never tried before. The nations of the world must unite in joint guarantees that whatever is done to disturb the whole world's life must first be tested in the court of the whole world's opinion before it is attempted.

THE PRESIDENT ON MEXICO

In regard to his Mexican policy Mr. Wilson said:

We have professed to believe, and we do believe, that the people of small and weak states have the right to expect to be dealt with exactly as the people of big and powerful states would be. We have acted upon that principle in dealing with the people of Mexico. . . .

Many serious wrongs against the property, many irreparable wrongs against the persons of

Americans, have been committed within the territory of Mexico herself during this confused revolution, wrongs which could not be effectually checked so long as there was no constituted power in Mexico which was in a position to check them. We could not act directly in that matter ourselves without denying Mexicans the right to any revolution at all which disturbed us, and making the emancipation of her own people await our own interest and convenience.

Mr. Wilson continued by saying that his Mexican policy was "not hard for the plain people of the United States to understand," but that it was a "hard doctrine only for those who wished to get something for themselves out of Mexico." He added:

I have heard no one who was free from such influences propose interference by the United States with the internal affairs of Mexico. Cer tainly no friend of the Mexican people has proposed it.

As if to forestall his opponents in pointing out that his action towards Huerta was a distinct interference with the internal affairs of Mexico, Mr. Wilson continued:

The unspeakable Huerta betrayed the very comrades he served, traitorously overthrew the Government of which he was a trusted part, impudently spoke for the very forces that had driven his people to the rebellion with which he had pretended to sympathize. The men who overcame him and drove him out represent at least the fierce passion of reconstruction which lies at the very heart of liberty; and so long as they represent, however imperfectly, such a struggle for deliverance, I am ready to serve their ends when I can. So long as the power of recognition rests with me, the Government of the United States will refuse to extend the hand of welcome to any one who obtains power in a sister republic by treachery and violence.

Of course if a blow from the shoulder can be characterized as 66 withholding the hand of welcome," certainly Mr. Wilson cannot be charged with inconsistency in this matter.

In concluding his address Mr. Wilson summed up his vision of the future America in these words:

We are Americans for Big America, and rejoice to look forward to the days in which America shall strive to stir the world without irritating it or drawing it on to new antagonisms, when the nations with which we deal shall at last come to see upon what deep foundations of humanity and justice our passion for peace rests, and when all mankind shall look upon our great people with a new sentiment of admiration, friendly rivalry, and real affection, as upon

1916

a people who, though keen to succeed, seek always to be at once generous and just, and to whom humanity is dearer than profit or selfish power.

Upon this record and in the faith of this purpose we go to the country.

THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE CAMPAIGN

The Outlook in last week's issue commented editorially upon Mr. Roosevelt's Lewiston address, emphatically indorsing the principles of Americanism therein enunciated.

There have been those who have been waiting for a similarly emphatic utterance from Mr. Hughes since his address in Carnegie Hall formally accepting the Republican nomination. Mr. Hughes has now placed himself squarely beside Mr. Roosevelt on the question of Americanism by a telegram which he addressed to Mr. Roosevelt after the Lewiston speech. From Kansas Mr. Hughes telegraphed: "I heartily congratulate you on your speech at Lewiston, and warmly appreciate your effective support." The position which Mr. Hughes took in his telegram to Mr. Roosevelt he emphasized during his subsequent visit to St. Louis, a city which has been looked upon as the center of German sympathy and partisanship. According to a report in the New York "Tribune," Mr. Hughes took the occasion of his visit to St. Louis to restate his attitude towards Mr. Roosevelt's speech. The Tribune says: Publication of the Hughes telegram to Colonel Roosevelt in the morning newspapers had caused St. Louis Germans to inquire whether its implied acceptance of the Roosevelt views concerning the hyphen question had been properly understood.

Several prominent citizens even advised that a statement be issued by Mr. Hughes denying that he shared the opinions of the Colonel.

Just before the candidate's party went to the Business Men's League for luncheon the question was put squarely up to Mr. Hughes.

"Did your telegram to Colonel Roosevelt carry with it an acceptance of the Roosevelt views on hyphenates?" he was asked.

"The telegram may be taken on its face value. I meant just what I said," was the reply.

From St. Louis Mr. Hughes journeyed to Nashville, Tennessee, where, facing an audience a majority of whom were sympathizers with President Wilson, he won the respect and attention of his hearers. The reporter of the New York "Times," a newspaper which in general supports Mr. Wilson, but whose editorial views do not often influ

63

ence its news reports, writes of Mr. Hughes's Nashville welcome :

The address was delivered in the Auditorium here before a crowd of 3,000 persons, a large majority of whom were openly hostile and attempted to start demonstrations for Wilson by hisses and catcalls. Mr. Hughes's fighting words won the crowd for the time and found applause.

It was during Mr. Hughes's discussion of the Mexican question that one of the most dramatic incidents of his Nashville address occurred. A questioner in the gallery shouted out an inquiry as to what he would have done under the circumstances. "What would I have done?" replied Mr. Hughes. "I would have protected American lives; and that is what I will do."

MR. HUGHES ON THE RAILWAY STRIKE.

Passing from the question of foreign politics to the labor situation, Mr. Hughes, emphatically stated his position on the great labor strike which has been so narrowly and perhaps but temporarily averted. He said:

I believe there is no grievance with respect to labor that cannot be settled by a fair, candid examination of the facts. We have in the past had to deal frequently with the opposition of employers to the principle of arbitration. Sometimes they have refused to arbitrate disputes. Public opinion has been against them. I believe and I stand here firmly for the principle of arbitrating all industrial disputes, and I would not surrender it to anybody in the country.

...

Now, then, I stand for two things: first, for the principle of fair, impartial, thorough, candid arbit:ation; and, second, for legislation on facts according to the necessities of the case; and I am opposed to being dictated to either in the executive department or in Congress by any power on earth before the facts are known and in the absence of the facts.

Mr. F. M. Davenport, whose article describing the Hughes trip appears elsewhere in this issue, writes us from Nashville that these remarks were received by the audience "with a whirlwind of applause."

It has been pointed out that Mr. Hughes, while Governor of New York State, vetoed the bill requiring railways to furnish transportation for two cents a mile on exactly the grounds which he has taken towards the settlement of the railway strike. The position which Mr. Hughes has taken is entirely analogous with that which Mr. Roosevelt assumed in the settlement of the anthracite strike.

Mr. Roosevelt has not commented at any length upon the present railway situation, but from the brief statement which he has made it is plain that he believes that the present situation should have been handled as the anthracite strike was handled in 1901.

IN CALIFORNIA AND OHIO For some time the California situation has been a thorn in the side of the Republican party. Governor Johnson, the only Progressive Governor still in office, and the candidate for Vice-President on the Progressive ticket in 1912, was one of the first and strongest Progressives to declare himself for the election of Hughes. Nevertheless, the apparently irreconcilable differences between the Progressives and the old-line Republicans of California, together with the

refusal of such a California Progressive as Francis J. Heney to enter the Republican ranks, have been the cause of no little political worry, Governor Johnson, however, who entered the race for the United States Senate in both the Republican and Progressive primaries, has been nominated on both tickets. Governor Johnson's nomination is regarded as a valuable omen of Republican success in the fall. Governor Johnson's opponent will be his onetime fellow-Progressive, Francis J. Heney. The Democrats are predicting that the Republican Old Guard in California will vote for Heney rather than for Governor Johnson.

Another victory in the primaries which encourages the Republicans is that of Mr. Myron Herrick in Ohio. We are glad to say that ex-Ambassador Herrick was nominated by a decisive majority for the Senate.

To the Editors of The Outlook:

As a presentation of individual opinion of reasons for continuing the Democratic party in control of our Government, the article by Theodore H. Price with the above title, in your issue of August 23, merits the encomiums you bestow in its prefix.

As a presentation of "economic and financial arguments it is subject to further remark along other lines than those pursued in your editorial.

After fairly and, with his unequaled facility in handling figures, clearly summarizing our economic growth during the past two years, Mr. Price asserts: "Whatever profit the United States has derived from the war in Europe is measured exclusively by the increase in the balance of trade in our favor." This statement he supports by an ingenious argument, reduced to its elements, apparently, as follows:

The excess of our favorable trade balance over the normal during the past two years being only $21.30 per capita, against a per capita increase in wealth during the same period of $410, leaves $388.70 made for each individual by the Democratic party.

Although the writer of your article in other of his productions has been accustomed

patiently to trace incidental economic effects and philosophically to analyze fundamental processes, in this instance he stops short at the first link in a long chain.

Mr. Price is a man of imagination. Let him, in the exercise of that faculty, conceive an isolated community depending on a single manufacturing enterprise, employing substantially the entire adult population; that enterprise on the outbreak of the war abandoning its legitimate line and engaging in the munition. business, doubling its capacity, tripling its force, and increasing by fifty per cent the average wage paid; the railway serving that community carrying five times the freight it did before the war; the shopkeepers' business doubled; the moving-picture houses filled daily in contrast to former tri-weekly performances; the farmers of the neighborhood riding in motor cars paid for out of profits from sales of produce in the booming. town; landlords enjoying higher rents; bank deposits up seventy-five per cent; and such other evidences of prosperity as the fancy, in the light of observation, may conjure.

The analogy may be crude; a reductio ad absurdum usually is. One need only to recall how gradually business recuperated after the first shock of the war in the last

1916

months of 1914 and well on into 1915 to appreciate the economic process by which prosperity was disseminated. It was usual then to hear the merchant or manufacturer concerned with peace products say, in effect, "We're doing little-only people with war contracts are making money.' The change was rapid; soon one became accustomed to admissions of improvement, and finally to assertions of activity and good business in all but relatively few lines.

Mr. Price next asserts: "Our prosperity has been mainly due to the encouragement that has been given to business and enterprise by the Democratic party under the leadership of President Wilson," and cites in support of his claim these seven Acts of Congress :

1. The Federal Reserve Act, as your editorial points out, is the product of the Republican statesmanship which created the Monetary Commission. You might have added that Senator Root, a Republican, by force of logic and intelligence, at the eleventh hour induced a Democratic Congress to eliminate from the then pending bill some of the most material changes the Democrats had made in the Republican scheme for currency reform.

2. The Rural Credits Bill became a law within two months. The experiment into which the Government will launch by virtue of its provisions may operate beneficently; but as operations under this law have not yet fairly begun, its contribution to past prosperity is not apt to be elsewhere emphasized during the present campaign.

3. The Income Tax Law became a possibility only after the Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was ratified. That amendment was proposed by and ratified under Republican auspices and became effective only ten days before the Republicans passed out of power. Without going into the question, which a goodly number of our people will deem debatable, whether by any possibility the income tax contributes to National prosperity, the Republicans, rather than the Democrats, seem entitled to whatever credit or blame attaches to the application of the income tax.

4. The Federal Trade Commission Act, if memory serves, is in line with carrying out the Rooseveltian policy, which first took concrete form in the establishment of the Bureau

65

of Corporations. Perhaps the writer of your article may be able to point to substantial accomplishments toward the furtherance of prosperity by the Trade Commission during its brief existence. They certainly have not been emphasized in the public press.

5. The Clayton Bill by its terms does not become effective until next October in respect of the features which your writer enumerates.

6. The Good Roads Law, as Mr. Price says, “promises" great things.. But his argument is based on accomplishments, not promises.

7. The Agricultural Education Act, although two years old, is another prospect, in the class with the Rural Credits and Good Roads laws.

Thus these seven sisters of prosperity resolve themselves into a respectable adolescent Republican, a Republican of at least questionable virtue, a child with inherited progressive characteristics, and four promising infants.

More surprising than Mr. Price's forgetfulness of the incidental economic effects due to stimulation of special industries is his lapse of memory when he says: "Thanks to the conservatism, tact, and statesmanship of President Wilson, we have become the most powerful Nation in the world, both morally and economically." If so, then why do we celebrate Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays? Why do Democrats foregather to honor Jefferson? Why do we make efforts to conserve our National resources? Indeed, why do we go to church?

"President Wilson and prosperity "—the fact and Mr. Price's conclusions therefrom bring to mind a farmer's son of whom Abraham Lincoln was wont to speak on occasions. This small boy peeked through the window of the best room in the farm-house while his older sister was entertaining a caller. In alarm he rushed to his father, shouting, "Come, hurry, Sue's sick!" The father inquired what evidence Sue gave of illness, and the boy replied: "She's sitting on the sofa with Jim Brown and he's holding her tight so she won't fall off. I think she's fainted."

"You see," Mr. Lincoln would add, “the boy's facts were all right, but his conclusions were all wrong.” F. C. G.

Philadelphia, August 29, 1916.

HOW WOULD YOU HAVE VOTED?

S

YES.

O would the New York "World."

It

says that the first duty of a doctor in an emergency case is to save the patient's life, not to prescribe a system of moral and economic conduct for him in the event that he survives. The "World" continues:

It is the duty of Congress to take such practicable means as may be adopted at once to remove the excuse for a strike. Whatever further adjustments are necessary can be left for the future. That is the common-sense method, and Congress is displaying far more intelligence and patriotism than its critics. . . .

A philosophic fire department might plausibly contend that its chief duty was not to extinguish the flames, but to frame a fireproof building code and strengthen the laws against arson. That would no doubt be an admirable public service, but in the meantime the building would burn down, the fire would communicate itself to other buildings, and a whole community would be left homeless. We prefer the Congressional way of putting out the fire first, and determining later whether it was of incendiary origin or due to defective wiring, and whether the owner can legally collect his insurance.

Yet why disregard arbitration? The action of the President and of Congress in so doing is defended by the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) "Gazette" as follows:

The Congress is the proper and the most cɔmpetent board of arbitration. In this case the Congress had so much courage that it refused to dodge the responsibility and by a show of cowardice follow Congressional precedents of half a century standing.

The President and the Congress declined to delegate their authority and elected to stand or fall in the estimation of the public by the exercise of their own convictions.

Whichever side had lost the greater number of points by the decision of a specially created board of arbitration would have alleged prejudice, incompetence, or lack of understanding. Nothing would have been settled. The issue would have been left open for the promotion of other disagreements involving similar causes of discussion.

The President and the Congress could not have created a board and conferred upon it greater authority than they themselves enjoy. Having the authority, it was their duty to act. The Congress has had this eight-hour question before it for several years. It has been dis

cussed locally, and in very many cases determined by States and cities. No doubt every Senator and every Representative has experimental knowledge of the working of the rule. The evidence has been available to them all. No members of a possible board of arbitration should have been better informed. The Members of Congress are chosen for the specific purpose of regulating the business intercourse of States and individuals. . . . The principle of arbitration is in no way affected by the action of Congress.

With characteristic felicity and force of phrase the "New Republic" thus dis

courses:

The eight-hour day, like the phrases "due process, ," "reasonable," "living wage," has not a definite and unequivocal meaning. It represents a general principle of action, a kind of norm for the industrial world. It cannot be applied rigidly, but its general intention can be made a standard in concrete cases. Congress should declare for it, and so establish in the minds of employers, men, and public authorities a standard to which they can appeal. The modern community requires an official declaration of what constitutes a civilized working day, and the President is right in believing that eight hours meets the consensus of opinion among those who have thought humanely and disinterestedly on the subject. . . . Mr. Wilson has done what high statesmanship in a democracy must do: he has interpreted the demands, principles, and interests of group interests, and lifted them up into a National programme. He has shown how to turn an emergency to constructive purposes.

...

The political necessity which compelled the President and a Democratic Congress to act as they have is thus explained by the Detroit "News :"

President Wilson is running on a platform which recognizes the eight-hour day. That clause was placed in the Democratic platform because the leaders of the party believe that the American people are willing to recognize eight hours as the proper work period. The President cannot withdraw from that position.

As might be expected, other Democratic papers, like the Columbia (South Carolina) "State," are insistent that President Wilson has scored another victory, one which, though of internal concern only, affects the people of the United States scarcely less than would the decision for war or peace with a foreign