consideration three accepted as fact:

The United States must have a merchant marine under its own flag.

The United States desires the best living conditions possible for its laborers on the

sea.

The laws of the United States can by no stretch of the imagination be made to control the merchant marine of our commercial rivals. Which shall we abandon, our merchant marine or our humanitarian principles ?-or neither ? This is a problem which will press upon the next Congress for solution.

A PROPOSED PLATFORM

The political journals are engaged in discussing the question whether or not the Republican and Progressive parties will unite in the next political campaign, and, if so, what candidate they will nominate for the Presidency. There appears to The Outlook to be à question much more important, namely, Can they agree on a political platform, and, if so, what shall the platform be?

The object of a political party is, or ought to be, not merely to elect a candidate, but to incorporate in the National life certain fundamental principles. The men who agree on what these principles are ought to be able to unite in an organization to secure the acceptance of these principles by their fellow-citizens. If they cannot agree on these principles, there is every reason why they should not unite to elect a candidate whose principles they do not know or to get power when they do not know how that power is to be used.

We should like to see in 1916 a political party adopt the four following fundamental principles, and nominate a candidate whose past character and career justified the belief that he would stand for these principles alike in victory and in defeat:

Government

Protection of the people. should protect its citizens at home and abroad, on land and on sea, from foreign aggression and from domestic oppression. It should be equipped with an efficient police, army, and navy, so organized and controlled as to be the servants, not the masters, of the people. It should, by appropriate legislation, protect from industrial oppression the rights of children to their childhood, of women to their wifehood and mother

Gov

Promotion of the people's industries. ernment should protect and promote private business, whether individual or corporate, should never paralyze private enterprise by breaking up business organizations merely because they are big, and attempting to turn the community back to unregulated competition, nor by conducting such business as can be effectively conducted for the public welfare by private enterprise; but it should bring all organizations, whether of labor or capital, under Government control so far as may be necessary to make them minister to the welfare of the community.

Preservation of the people's property. Government should protect from private spoliation the property of the public—that is, the property which is the gift of God to man, not the product of man's industry; and therefore it should take such measures as may be necessary to conserve for the public welfare the harbors, navigable rivers, water powers, forests, and mines of the country.

Government by the people. The Federal Government should be endowed by the people with power adequate to enable it to accomplish these results. They can best be accomplished by self-government; therefore provision should be made for the education of all the people under the American flag, by ethical, industrial, and vocational training as well as by literary and academic instruction, that they may be prepared for self-government; and the political institutions of the country should be so framed that the people may be able to nominate, as well as elect, their officials, and to call them to a frequent and strict accounting for the administration of their official duties. Officials, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are chosen, not to govern the people, but to enable the people to govern themselves.

In this statement of principles we have said nothing about either prohibition or women's suffrage. After the people have obtained the real power of self-government, and are imbued with the ideas of social justice, for which governments are established among men, they will be better prepared than now to consider what course is wise and just respecting women's share in the responsibilities of government, and respecting the regulation of dangerous articles of commerce, such as dynamite and alcohol.

L

AST week, in a piece of editorial correspondence from Albany, The Outlook gave its readers a picture of the Convention that has been engaged since early spring in rebuilding the Constitution of New York State. In that correspondence and in an editorial an effort was made to throw light on the somewhat hidden fight that has been going on in the Convention between the reactionary forces of invisible government and the forces of progress. It was pointed out that the gist of the programme to give more liberty to the people was found in four measures, namely, the proposal to give the Governor the initiative in budget-making, to reduce the number of State departments from more than a hundred and fifty to about a dozen, to increase the power of the executive by making all but three or four of the officers now elected on the State ballot subject to appointment by the Governor, and, finally, to give an increased measure of home rule to cities.

As The Outlook goes to press, only one of those measures has been favorably passed upon-the one empowering the Governor to draw up the State budget, which can be reduced but not increased by the Legislature. The Home Rule measure proposed by the committee of which Mr. Seth Low, former Mayor of New York, is chairman, has been sent back to committee for revision, but it is probable that before this issue of The Outlook reaches its readers the Convention will have taken final action on this subject, and on the proposal submitted by Mr. Frederick C. Tanner, Chairman of the Republican State Committee, to reduce the number of State departments from one hundred and fifty-two to thirteen, and to make all State officers now elected subject to appointment by the Governor, except the Governor, LieutenantGovernor, Attorney-General, and Comptroller.

But in the meantime other activities of the Convention are worth inspection. An interesting amendment adopted by the Convention during the week is the article on taxation, which would give the State Tax Commission power to classify personal property and fix a low tax rate on each class—a provision that seems likely to bring in millions of dollars of revenue, thus making possible a

decrease in the size of the State and local taxes on real estate.

Another important proposal is the recommendation aimed at lessening the law's delay which was reported to the Convention by the Committee on Judiciary, of which former Attorney-General George W. Wickersham is chairman. This committee, blaming the complicated rules of the Code of Civil Procedure and constant legislative tinkering therewith for the inordinate sluggishness of the processes of the law in New York (which also exists in most other States of the Union), made the following principal recommendations:

The establishment of a brief and simple practice act; the adoption of a separate body of civil practice rules regulating procedure in the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, and the County Courts; and the granting of power to the Legislature to appoint a Commission at five-year intervals to report any changes that it may deem necessary to make in the law and in the regulations of civil procedure, the adoption of such reports by the Legislature being the only power it shall have in such matters, all other power to form and change the rules of civil procedure to be vested in the Judges of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

Thus far we have been considering the constructive work of the Constitutional Convention, but just as important has been the defeat, by the more enlightened delegates at Albany, of certain reactionary, liberty-reducing proposals.

The Outlook has already referred to the amendment suggested by Mr. William Barnes, Jr., which, if adopted, would have prevented the passage of further social legislation like the Minimum Wage Law, the Widows' Pension Law, and the Workmen's Compensation Law. We did not treat this proposal in detail, however, because the chances of its passage seemed almost negligible until the proposal was reported out of committee into the Convention. Then the herculean efforts of the erstwhile Republican State Chairman brought out an unexpected show of strength for the medieval measure which threw a genuine panic into the ranks of the more progressive, or rather less conservative, elements in the Convention, led by Mr.

Root, who realized that the incorporation in the Constitution of a plank so subversive of popular liberty as the Barnes recommendation would almost surely mean the rejection of the entire instrument by the people at the polls in November. After the most bitter fight which the Convention had seen up to that time, the Barnes amendment was defeated by a vote of 93 to 45.

The Barnes proposal was the more insidious because it had been so speciously worded that its advocates were able to claim with some plausibility that it safeguarded "the "the ideal of equality from the principle of privilege." It provided that "the Legislature shall not pass any bill :

66

:

'Granting hereafter to any class of individuals any privilege or immunity not granted equally to all members of the State.

or

"Providing for or authorizing the expenditure of any public money to be paid to any person except for materials furnished services rendered upon employment by the State or a civil division thereof, or in recog. nition of such service.

"Establishing a minimum wage for service to be paid to any employee by a private employer.""

The last stipulation in the amendment was the only one that would give the layman any inkling of the true purpose of the proposition, which was not, as purported, to protect the people from the seekers of special privileges, but rather to intrench special business interests in the ground that they now hold somewhat precariously in the face of the growing popular conviction that it is the business of the State to protect the workers who produce the wealth of society and to care for those who have been incapacitated while working for the common weal.

The true nature and intent of the Barnes proposal was ably revealed by Mr. Wickersham, who said: "Mr. Barnes seeks to tie the hands of the Legislature that it may not deal with any class, no matter how exceptional their condition, and that would be to destroy the whole basis upon which the American commonwealth has advanced since its foundation, of classifying laws for the purpose of meeting cases which fell within the classification.

"It would deprive the State of the capacity to do justice for a wrong inflicted, to engage in any benevolent or charitable affairs of any kind, or to expend one dollar in preventing

pauperism, in relieving the necessities of the aged, or of assisting the necessities of those incapacitated by weakness."

In the voting Mr. Barnes had with him former Judge Alphonso T. Clearwater, Mr. James S. Whipple, and Mr. Lemuel E. Quigg, who was long prominent in New York City machine politics, and most of the Old Guard of the Republican standpatters. For the defeat of this menace to democratic government the public can thank the more enlightened Republicans like Messrs. Wickersham, Stimson, Root, and Parsons, some Democrats of the same kind, like Mr. Louis Marshall, and, to their credit be it said, the leading representatives of Tammany in the Convention, notably Senator Robert F. Wagner and Assemblyman Albert E. Smith.

We cannot close this review of the recent activities of the Albany Convention without calling attention to one proposal yet to be passed on, which seems to carry a concealed thorn which may prove a source of public injury if it is not cut out. We refer to the amendment introduced by Mr. W. T. Dunmore, providing that the Legislature shall not pass any act under the police power that is "unreasonable." The Anti-Saloon League has pointed out that, as liquor legislation is based upon the exercise of the police power, and as the power of a Legislature, established by a solid line of decisions, is now complete to the extent of the total destruction of the liquor traffic, it is evident that the adoption of this proposition might operate in such a manner as to take away or restrict the legislative power to regulate or prohibit the trade in liquor. "All that would be necessary would be for judges, chosen and elected with the aid of forces notoriously in alliance with the liquor traffic in this State in times past, to hold that certain proposed legislation is unreasonable,' and that would be the end of it."

6

This seems to be a warning well given. Mr. Dunmore may be innocent, as he protests that he is, of any intent to help the liquor interests, but the fact that Mr. Barnes's Committee of Legislative Powers has favorably reported the Dunmore amendment, and that Mr. Barnes is gathering his cohorts in the effort to put it through, seems to show that if the possibilities of this bill are not recognized by its framer, they are recog. nized by others who would be glad to use them.

T

HOSE Americans who have been influenced by the agitation against the export of arms from this country have been impressed undoubtedly by the argument that such trade is inhumane because, as it furnishes aid to armies, it therefore helps the spirit of militarism. The fact that

it does just the opposite has been very clearly stated in a note sent to Austria on August 12, by Secretary Lansing. As The Outlook has reported, Austria had protested against such export of arms from the United States, on the ground that these arms were going mainly to the Allies. Naturally, Germany and Austria wish to shut off from the Allies all possible sources of supply for munitions of war, and the agitation on behalf of an embargo on arms is pleasing both to Austria and Germany. Those who have taken part in this agitation for the benefit of these foreign countries cannot, of course, be persuaded by argument, though they can be informed of what the attitude of this country is. Those, on the other hand, who have taken part in this agitation because they want this country to remain neutral and because they want to oppose militarism are presumably openminded. It is to these latter that this note of Secretary Lansing may be said to be addressed, as well as to the Austrian Govern

ment.

SHALL A NEUTRAL NATION CHANGE THE LAW?

To put an embargo on arms, Secretary Lansing observes, would be to change international law. This, he says, is implied even by the Austrian Government itself. The reason why the law should be changed appears to be that one side has such naval superiority that it can prevent the other side from getting munitions from America, and so the argument seems to be that America should cut off munitions also from the side that has access to them now. This, says Secretary Lansing, "would impose upon every neutral nation a duty to sit in judgment on the progress of a war and to restrict its commercial intercourse with a belligerent whose naval successes prevented the neutral from trade with the enemy." If

this principle is sound, it should apply to all contraband. "A belligerent controlling the high seas might possess an ample supply of arms and ammunition, but be in want of food and clothing. On the novel principle that equalization is a neutral duty, neutral nations would be obligated to place an embargo on such articles because one of the belligerents could not obtain them through commercial intercourse.". And then Mr. Lansing points out that this ought to apply not only to a belligerent superior on sea but also to a belligerent superior on land. This would mean that a nation that can fight on land because it has plenty of munitions. ought to be debarred from purchasing munitions elsewhere, while the nation that lacks such munitions should be permitted to import them. Mr. Lansing does not explicitly point out how Austria's own argument could thus be used against her.

AUSTRIA AND GERMANY'S OWN EXAMPLE In former times, Secretary Lansing reminds Austria, there was no compunction on the part either of Austria or Germany in exporting munitions. Both of these empires had produced a great surplus of arms and munitions, and sold it freely. In the Boer War British naval vessels cut off the Transvaal and the Orange Free State from getting such supplies. At that time these republics" were in a situation almost identical in that respect with that in which Austria-Hungary and Germany find themselves at the present time." Yet Germany sold great quantities of explosives, gunpowder, cartridges, shot, and weapons, and Austria-Hungary sold similar munitions though in small quantities. And

Secretary Lansing gives the figures, which include such items as, for instance, over 1,325,000 pounds of explosives, and over 665,000 pounds of "shot, nickled or leadcoated, with copper rings, etc.," in the single year of 1900. "If at that time AustriaHungary and her present ally," says Secretary Lansing, with great frankness, "had refused to sell arms and ammunition to Great Britain on the ground that to do so would violate the spirit of strict neutrality, the Imperial and Royal Government might with greater consistency and greater force urge its present contention." Germany and Austria also supplied the belligerents in both the Balkan wars, and Germany supplied Russia in the Crimean War and Turkey in the Turko-Italian War. So it does not seem that Austria can very well" ascribe to the United States a lack of impartial neutrality."

AMERICAN SECURITY AGAINST WORLD

MILITARISM

The strongest part of the note is that in which Secretary Lansing points out that the safety of America, as of every other nation that does not wish to turn itself into an armed camp, must depend upon the right to import munitions in time of war. We quote this passage in full:

"But in addition to the question of principle there is a practical and substantial reason why the Government of the United States has from the foundation of the Republic to the present time advocated and practiced unrestricted trade in arms and military supplies. It has never been the policy of this country to maintain in time of peace a large military establishment or stores of arms and ammunition sufficient to repel invasion by a wellequipped and powerful enemy. It has desired to remain at peace with all nations, and to avoid any appearance of menacing such peace by the threat of its armies and navies. In conséquence of this standing policy the United States would, in the event of attack by a foreign Power, be at the outset of the war seriously, if not fatally, embarrassed by the lack of arms and ammunition and by the means to produce these in sufficient quantities to supply the requirements of National defense. The United States has always depended upon the right and power to purchase arms and ammunition from neutral nations in case of foreign attack. This right, which it claims for itself, it cannot deny to others.

"A nation whose principle and policy it is

to rely upon international obligations and international justice to preserve its political and territorial integrity might become the prey of an aggressive nation whose policy and practice it is to increase its military strength during times of peace with the design of conquest, unless the nation attacked can, after war had been declared, go into the markets of the world and purchase the means to defend itself against the aggressor.

"The general adoption by the nations of the world of the theory that neutral Powers ought to prohibit the sale of arms and ammunition to belligerents would compel every nation to have in readiness at all times sufficient munitions of war to meet any emergency which might arise, and to erect and maintain establishments for the manufacture of arms and ammunition sufficient to supply the needs of its military and naval forces throughout the progress of a war. Manifestly, the application of this theory would result in every nation becoming an armed camp, ready to resist aggression and tempted to employ force in asserting its rights rather than appeal to reason and justice for the settlement of international disputes.

"Perceiving, as it does, that the adoption of the principle that it is the duty of a neutral to prohibit the sale of arms and ammunition to a belligerent during the progress of a war would inevitably give the advantage to the belligerent which had encouraged the manufacture of munitions in time of peace, and which had laid in vast stores of arms and ammunition in anticipation of war, the Government of the United States is convinced that the adoption of the theory would force militarism on the world and work against that universal peace which is the desire and purpose of all nations which exalt justice and righteousness in their relations with one another."

SOME LEGAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Three points of international law which Austria raised Secretary Lansing answers briefly. To the point that a neutral may change its practice about exporting arms if it is necessary to do so for its own protection Secretary Lansing, with a polite hint of rebuke, suggests that this is a matter which the United States is competent to decide for itself. To the point that the United States has prohibited supplies to be taken from its ports to ships of war, Secretary Lansing says that this has no relation to an embargo, but is