The Minister of War has repeatedly emphasized in recent statements in the Reichstag the strict correctness of all the transactions of the War Ministry. We desire humbly to inquire whether he considers the editing of special advertising numbers of illustrated weeklies and the begging for advertisements by his depart ment strictly correct.

The journal then announces that the War Ministry edited, assisted in the compilation of, and invited advertisements of, armaments firms for the Military Number of the "Leipziger Illustrierte Zeitung," produced on April 10, at sixty cents a copy, with the express object of stirring up public feeling on behalf of the Army Bill. "Vorwärts" publishes an official memorandum issued by the War Ministry to these firms urging them to advertise in the "Illustrierte Zeitung." The publishers' circular accompanying the War Office memorandum, says "Vorwärts," points out that the number would be sure to "make a deep impression in Germany and create an enormous sensation abroad."

The German Armor Scandal: Government

Action

66

Another Berlin paper, a very radical but not a Socialist sheet, the Morgen Post," also explains how army and navy societies spring up to preach war with the unconcealed financial assistance of the armor plate firms, how files of pensioned officials steadily perambulate through the country preaching war, how the armor firms subsidize German newspapers to conduct crazy campaigns of hatred against France and England, and how these same firms sell weapons to the German Government at higher prices than to the nations their press is paid to abuse. It concludes: "The armaments factories pay thirty per cent dividends, but the German taxpayer is treacherously sold." In regard In regard to the assertion that an article had been printed in the Paris “ Figaro" in order to foment agitation in Germany for an increase of German armament, the "Figaro" indignantly denies that any such suggestion was made to it. As the French press is for the most part significantly silent, it is assumed that other charges made in Germany may have overreached the mark.

For

an armor-plate maker to employ agents to stir up bad blood between any two nations so that he may sell more goods; for him to organize clubs for the cultivation of the war fever; for him to subsidize newspapers which shall preach war; or for him to sell his goods at reduced rates to hostile nations so that their warlike preparations may make his home Government indulge in similar purchases-and at higher ratesthis is beyond anything that has ever been charged against army contractors in America! We are glad that the German Parliament has empowered a committee to investigate all armament contracts; and our confidence in the essential thoroughness and integrity of the German nation is such as to make us believe that this scandal will be sifted without fear or favor. We earnestly hope, for the sake of common humanity, that the accusations will be disproved.

The California Land Law Agitation

The principles which underlie the grave problems raised by the pro

posed anti-alien land legislation in California are considered in an editorial elsewhere in this issue of The Outlook. No actual step in advance or in retreat was made at Sacramento last week. The bill which passed the Assembly is of a hybrid nature, in that in its main provisions the limitations as to ownership and leasing relate to aliens who have not declared their intention "according to law" to become citizens; while the provision as to corporations forbids ownership when a majority of the stockholders are aliens "ineligible to become citizens of the United States under the naturalization laws thereof." The importance attached, whether rightly or not, to the distinction between these two definitions is indicated by the stress placed upon this point in President Wilson's telegraphic letters to Governor Johnson, and through him to the Legislature and people of California. In the first of these, sent in Mr. Bryan's name, the President "very respectfully, but most earnestly, advises against the use of the words ineligible to citizenship;': he even goes so far as to say that the Senate bill is greatly to be preferred. In the second letter, signed by the President personally, he says: "If they [that is, the California Legislature and people] deem it necessary to exclude all aliens who have not declared their intention to become citizens from the privileges of landownership, they can do so along

lines already followed in the laws of many of the other States, and of many foreign countries, including Japan herself." This accords with the two statements on the alien law question made public by Governor Johnson. In both he declares that California would not attempt to do more than has been done by other States, and points to laws against alien ownership in the District of Columbia and in the States of Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, and Washington, in all of which the acquisition of land by aliens is made to depend upon the purpose of becoming citizens. The President's effort to indicate at this stage what may be done without contravening treaty rights seems to many to be a premature attempt to decide what can really be decided with authority only by the Supreme Court. It would have been wiser if the Administration at the very outset-not after excitement in Japan led to talk of a serious clash between the two nations-had openly suggested to California, first, that the California legislators, before passing laws dealing with international matters, should assure themselves by consultation with the Federal Government that the laws proposed were not incompatible with the treaty and the Constitution; and, second, that if laws doubtful in this respect should be passed, the Federal Government would instantly put the matter to the test in Federal courts, and until a final decision was obtained would prevent injustice and loss to individuals, whether Californians or Japanese, by injunction from Federal courts. Not to advise or to protest against the wording of laws, not merely to urge recognition of the international character of specific legislation, but to assert the right and power of the National Government to uphold its treaties and its Constitution, on the one hand, and the rights of the people of California, on the other, was what the case called for.

National Government in the ultimate analysis must lead and not follow in whatever relates to National honor and National obligation. The telegraphic correspondence to which we have referred was followed by President Wilson's proposal that the Secretary of State, Mr. Bryan, should visit California, if agreeable to the Governor and Legislature, for the purpose of counseling and co-operating with its members in framing a law "which would meet the views of the people of the State and yet leave untouched the international obligations of the United States." Governor Johnson and the Legislature promptly indicated their pleasure in having the opportunity to consult with the Secretary of State, but (rather significantly, we think) made no reference to the proposal of "co-operation.' One comment quite generally made upon the sending of Mr. Bryan to California is that when the State was agitated over Japanese exclusion from the schools, the Mayor of San Francisco went to Washington to get the Government's view, while now the Administration sends its representative to California to get the State's view--a reversal of procedure, it is argued, not altogether consonant with National dignity. It is improbable that the California Senate will take any action for some little time after Mr. Bryan's arrival this week.

Is There a Japanese Peril ?

Entirely apart from treaty obligations, or questions as to the relative rights and duties of State and Federal authorities, it is of high moral importance to ask whether California has ground for being seriously disturbed about Japanese landownership. However disguised the phraseology of the bills proposed may be, and whether or not they are technically correct, legally and constitutionally, American public sentiment throughout the country will deeply resent it if, without adequate reason or cause, one State shall take action which gives offense or seems humiliating to a nation with whom our relations are now friendly and are increasingly intimate. In point of fact, statisticians who have looked into the alleged dangerously large control of land in California by Japanese say that, including both ownership and leasing, the Japanese control less than one-third of one per cent of the State's total arable land, and that the amount has decreased instead of increased within the last two or three years. A Japanese who was formerly special agent

of the United States Immigration Commission has compiled a book upon the Japanese in America, which states that in 1912 the Japanese owned only 12,726 acres, an amount of land almost negligible in comparison with the enormous size of the State. And in reply to the fear that, small as this land control is, it may rapidly increase, it should be borne in mind that Japan has acted with perfect sincerity and effectiveness in preventing Japanese emigration to this country, as she agreed to do when Mr. Roosevelt, as President, brought about a friendly settlement of the questions raised by the former agitation in California; so that the total number of Japanese residents is decreasing. When the question as to the Japanese in the California schools was investigated, it was found that the number was very small indeed, and that the very real problem involved was perfectly capable of settlement without offense to Japan and through local regulation. When we remember the excitable methods of labor leaders in California, it may seem quite possible that the landownership question has not received that thorough examination and consideration which should precede legislation. Dr. Teusler, a director of St. Luke's Hospital in Tokyo, who is now in this country, has investigated this question in California, and reports that the Japanese own fewer than 25,000 acres, acquired during a period of twenty-five years, and he exclaims: "What is 25,000 acres in a State of 158.360 square miles!" Of course the reply is that the time to deal with a racial problem is when it first arises; and if those who say that the problem is increasing are right, the smallness of the acreage involved is not so significant. Dr. Teusler also shows that the restrictions upon foreign ownership of land in Japan are far less stringent than have been generally supposed. As regards the agitation and excitement in Japan which followed the situation in California, those who are inclined to exaggerate the facts may with benefit read these words from a newspaper interview with Captain Uyeno, a military attaché of the Japanese Embassy in London: "Such a thing as war between America and Japan," said Captain Uyeno, “is impossible. Such a thing will never happen. There is a war element, if you care to call it that, in all countries, but the best element in Japan, as in all other countries, is for peace, and Japan to-day entertains nothing but the friendliest feelings for the United States."

There is nothing to indicate that Mr. Marshall shared this opinion. He used it evidently to emphasize the fact that there is great social unrest and widespread discontent with the way in which wealth is distributed. As in the case of other exaggerated or fantastic statements used to call attention to some actual fact, the discussion has all centered about the illustration, and has ignored the point that Mr. Marshall wished to enforce. If Mr. Marshall has taken this opinion seriously, he has done what we should not suppose any intelligent and informed man would do. There used to be an idea that Socialists advocated something of this sort; but no one who has followed the tendency of modern Socialism any longer believes that the Socialists want to divide up private property after any such fashion. Mr. Marshall, however, is right in his opinion that there are a great many men of wealth who have no conception of the thoughtful discontent that great masses of their fellow-men feel. The other statement by Mr. Marshall has also caused comment and invited a great deal of criticism. It was made in his Jefferson Day speech in New York on April 12. He was trying to convince "backward-looking and inward-looking men" (in contradistinction to those men whom President Wilson has described as "forward-looking") that the security of property depends upon the popular belief in the justice of property rights. In order to do this he called attention to the fact that it is erroneous to suppose there is an inherent and constitutional right to pass property from one generation to another. Said Vice-President Marshall: "The right to inherit and the right to devise are neither inherent nor constitutional, but, upon the contrary, they are simply privileges given by the State to its citizens." This statement has been treated as if it were an argument for doing away with the right of inheritance. Of course it is no such thing. It is simply a statement of legal

fact. Of that fact there is no doubt. There is nothing in the American Constitution to prevent a legislature from dealing with inheritances as it wills. In some countries the right of bequeathing property is very markedly limited by law. In France, we believe, the law makes it impossible for a man to disinherit his own child. By inheritance taxes the law in some countries appropriates from every estate that passes from its owner at death a large proportion for the use of the State. There is nothing to prevent any legislature from acting on the principle that a man can control his property only so long as he lives and not after his death. The fact is not at all a suggestion that it would be desirable for any legislature to enact a law appropriating every estate upon the death of its owner. There are very sound reasons, however, for the belief that there is a great opportunity for providing a wiser distribution of wealth in the power which the State possesses over the transmission of property at death.

and Conservation

The extent to which

The Colorado Legislature the opponents of Conservation are willing to carry their opposition is indicated by a memorial to the President and Congress adopted by the Legislature of Colorado and signed by the Governor. While declaring that "the people of Colorado are in favor of Conservation in the meaning of prevention of waste and monopoly," it declares unmistakably and emphatically against practically every feature of the movement that has made Conservation possible. Furthermore, it repeats the arguments that have been stated again and again by those who have been open and persistent opponents of every Conservation measure. In this respect the Legislature of Colorado has performed a service. The pamphlet in which this memorial is printed may serve as a brief summary of the principal reasons offered against any Federal Conservation movement. It thus helps to make the issue clear. Nothing, for example, could be more emphatic or explicit than the statement: We deny that it is right or advisable for the Federal Government to retain the title to, and lease the public land for any pur pose." The form of argument, moreover, indicates the intensity of the opposition. For example, with regard to the exercise by the Federal Government of power over rights of way in the Federal domain, this memorial says, with especial reference to reclamation

projects under the administration of the Federal Government: "These projects and enterprises should not be made by officers of the Reclamation Service an excuse for the refusal to approve of rights of way and occupancy of lands under private irrigation projects." In the use of this term "excuse" hostility to the policy of Conservation is expressed as definitely as if it occupied pages of print. Still further, the Colorado Legislature commits itself to the view that, after all, private enterprise is the best force on which to depend for the protection of natural resources. This is sufficiently shown in one sentence: "The man who is willing to put his labor and money into the development of a mining claim is the person best fitted to classify the land, and should be permitted to acquire it." The Colorado Legislature turns again to a criticism of the whole leasing system. Let us quote

two sentences: .

Without the value the presence and industry of our people have added to them, there is not a dollar's worth of value in any of our natural resources. Every dollar, therefore, charged in the form of royalty on the products of these resources is a tax on human toil.

Apart from the fact that this is a non sequitur -for the natural conclusion from the first sentence might equally be that dividends derived from the products of those resources are a private tax-this represents an uncompromising opposition to the leasing of any of the public domain by the Government. It is needless to continue quotations to indicate that this memorial expresses a policy with regard to our natural resources which believers in Conservation regard as directly leading to the greatest waste and the most certain monopoly. Those who believe that natural resources in possession of the Nation can be protected adequately only by Federal action

should take notice.

At the last session of Congress, toward the very close of the Taft Administration, Congress passed a Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill. This measure provided money for the conduct of various branches of the Federal Government. One provision in this bill forbade the use of money thus appropriated in proceedings to enforce the Anti-Trust Law against labor unions and farmers' organizations. There were three objections to this provision: first, that it was a piece of general legislation tacked on as a "rider" to an

The Anti-Trust Law and Labor Organizations

appropriation bill; second, that it left the Anti-Trust Law unchanged, but prevented in part its enforcement; and, third, that it was class legislation, singling out wage-earners and farmers for favoritism. President Taft vetoed the bill because of this "rider." Of course the Government must have money, and some kind of Civil Appropriation Bill must be passed. The House has now passed the bill again, and in doing so has kept the "rider" as a part of it; and it has been favorably reported in the Senate. The third objection, that the provision singles out a class for favoritism in legislation, we do not think is quite valid. The Anti-Trust Law is aimed at those combinations that tend to monopolize any commodity. Those who regard labor as a commodity, like shoes or beef or oil or steel, naturally argue that a labor combination should be treated like an oil trust or beef trust. Those, however, who, as we do, regard labor as human beings in the mass, and labor organizations as organizations of men formed not to control a commodity but to control themselves, believe that the legal restraint of labor organizations should be on a different basis from the legal restraint of trusts. Both kinds of combination should be under governmental regulation, but as the one kind differs in character from the other, so the form of regulation applied to the one should be different from that applied to the other. There is no more class legislation in this than in treating tenements in a different way from onefamily houses, or the inspection of food products in a different way from the inspection of school children. If the Anti-Trust Law, as interpreted by the courts, does treat both kinds of organizations alike, it ought, we believe, to be changed; but the rider on the Appropriation Bill does not change it. On the first two grounds this "rider" is distinctly objectionable. First, it is an attempt to take advantage of the necessities of the Government in order by indirection to enact a measure which ought to be subjected to the fire of debate. This is always bad, whether the measure itself is meritorious or not. Second, it is not a real amendment even by indirection—it is simply a command by Congress that offe of its own laws shall not in all respects be enforced! Even if the position be taken that Congress never intended the law to include associations of men organized for their own self-protection, the law is not what the inner thoughts of Congressmen and Sen

ators considered it to be when enacted, but what it has been decided to be by the courts. If Congress believes that the law cannot be enforced against such associations, the provision prohibiting its use to that end is unnecessary; if Congress believes that it can be, and yet ought not to be, so enforced, Congress should change the law.

Most people of the East who The Firemen's Award use the railways have reason to be profoundly thankful. Instead of wondering how they may go from place to place as their needs require, and how they may obtain food and the other necessities of life that come to them daily by rail, they are moving to and fro on the railways and getting their commodities—because there is such a thing as Industrial Arbitration. As our readers know, the firemen on the principal railways in the eastern part of the United States made certain demands upon the railway companies with regard to wages and conditions of labor. For a while a strike seemed imminent. No one can conjecture what the results of such a strike might have been. The term "industrial war" is no exaggeration. The physical and moral evils of war in industry are at least as pronounced and real as any form of war. These evils were avoided by the employment of a better method of settling industrial disputes. Under the Erdman Act a board, consisting of Albert Phillips, representing the firemen, W. W. Atterbury, representing the railway managers, and Judge W. L. Chambers, chairman, representing the public, heard the evidence and last week readered their findings. The decision they reached was unanimous. It allowed an increase of wages greater than the managers wished to grant and less than the men stipulated in their original demand. This wage increase, however, instead of being calculated from July of last year, as the men argued that it should be, takes effect, according to the general provisions of the Erdman Act, ten days after the award is filed. In this, it seems, the men had no great cause for complaint, inasmuch as it was they who argued strongly for the observance of the Erdman Act in the constitution of the arbitral board. In respect to conditions of work the men have profited very largely by the arbitration proceedings. Though their proposal that two firemen be employed on a certain type of