engine was denied, a method was provided by which specific cases of disagreement as to the use of one or two firemen could be settled by arbitration. The firemen's proposals that helpers in electric service should have the same conditions as firemen on steam railways; that the firemen in pusher and helper service, mine runs, and in work, wreck, beltline, and transfer service, should have the same rates as in through freight service, that the working day should be ten hours or a hundred miles or less (the general practice), that the day should begin when a man reported for work and end when the engine was delivered at the designated place, and that the firemen should be relieved of certain of their duties that are done on many roads by round-house employees, were granted. Will such a decision increase the cost of transportation? If it proves that it necessarily does so, the public ought to be willing to pay. No man ought to wish to travel at the cost of his fellow-men who serve him on the railways. It does not necessarily follow, however, that such an award will increase the cost of transportation. If it makes for increased efficiency, it may actually reduce such cost. It is not inconceivable that such an award may result in moral and physical benefit to the railway owners and managers, the railway employees, and the public alike.

A Double Labor War

The strike that has been going on for many weeks among the silk mill workers of Paterson, New Jersey, has involved, in addition to all the usual objectionable and wasteful features of a labor war, the singular spectacle of two great labor organizations warring one against the other-namely, the American Federation of Labor and the Industrial Workers of the World. When one reads of the bitterness of the fight between the mill-owners and the workers, of the charges of violence made against the workers, and the charges of unnecessary and improper force made by the workers against the police, the one thing that impresses the reader's mind is the contrast between this archaic battling and the reasonable settlement of such disputes by the Protocol method, as recently in New York and Boston, and by arbitration, as with the railway firemen. It is said that in Paterson twenty-five thousand men, women, and children have been thrown out of work for two months. Meanwhile the Industrial

Workers of the World have been represented by their two most prominent orators and organizers, W. D. Haywood and Elizabeth Flynn. There have been enormous demonstrations; at the funeral of an innocent man, totally unconcerned in the strike matter, who was shot to death during a street disturbance by a private detective, over four thousand of the strikers marched in procession wearing red ribbons or red carnations, which they threw in the grave of poor Vallanio. The American Federation of Labor appears to have attempted intervention for the twofold purpose of bringing about a settlement of the strike and of organizing the workers under the Federation plan. This means the forming of unions on the basis of trade lines for instance, all weavers in one union, etc.; while the Industrial Workers of the World are following here, as always, their basic plan of organizing by industry; thus they call out in this strike all the people employed in the mills involved, without regard to their special work. Paterson is being injured severely in all its trade; wages, it is said, to the amount of nearly two million dollars have been lost by idleness, and the general situation is about as bad as it can be. Hatefulness and strife once more have shown their inadequacy to deal with questions of industrial justice and equity. Fifty years hence we believe that a strike of this character will be unthinkable.

The idea of social laborSocial Laboratories atories for testing the and School Lunches soundness of new social activities before their general adoption by municipal or State governments is rapidly spreading. The munificent gift of Mrs. Elizabeth Milbank Anderson of $650,000 for this purpose to the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor marks a new era in this field, and assures a more scientific testing of these social activities than has heretofore been possible. Under the terms of this gift experiments will be made in matters relating to public health, to the physical welfare of school children, and to the numerous problems connected with the food supply. It is expected in particular that New York City will test the effect of medical inspection of school children, of dental clinics, of proper methods of ventilation and sanitation of school buildings, and of furnishing hot school lunches at cost price. It will

also make it possible to determine the effect of public baths upon public health. These and other experiments fundamental in any programme of social welfare will be undertaken. One of the most interesting, however, of these experiments is that of feeding school children at cost. For several years a voluntary committee of public-spirited citizens, under the effective leadership of Miss Mabel Kittredge as chairman, has been supplying, in a half-dozen public schools in New York City, hot school lunches at approximately food cost. These lunches are served to children at two and three cents each, each portion being one cent. It is the desire of Mrs. Anderson to extend this experiment to some sixteen schools, to establish central or group kitchens from which several schools can be supplied, thereby reducing the cost, and to make it possible for the School Lunch Committee to study scientifically the effect of such lunches upon the children and their capacity for school work; and in general to determine, as a result of this laboratory work, whether the principle of hot lunches to school children at cost should not be extended to practically all sections of New York and other municipalities.

So much has this work atMr. Roosevelt's tracted the attention of pub

Visit lic-spirited citizens that a visit to the work was recently arranged for Mr. Roosevelt. He was greatly impressed with the amount of nourishing food that could be supplied to the children at this cost. He was impressed also with the effect which this work has upon the families of the children in showing them how to supply nourishing food to their children at a very moderate cost. The training that the giving of these lunches affords to some of the older girls in the school who regularly assist in serving interested him especially; and the numerous push-carts which were congregated in front of schools not maintaining school lunches, from which Mr. Roosevelt saw children buying pickles, sticks of licorice, and other food with little nourishment and exposed to all kinds of street dust and uncleanliness, were a very convincing argument to him, as they would be to any keen observer, for the continuation and extension of the excellent work which has been done by the School Lunch Committee in New York City. In a similar way other social experiments are to be made

by the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, and the new Department of Social Welfare which will conduct these experiments will be under the direction of Mr. Bailey B. Burritt, who has for some years been engaged in social work in New York City, whose selection for this work has just been announced by Mr. John A. Kingsbury, the General Director of the Association.

Port and Starboard

The decision of the Navy Department to substitute, in giving orders to the helmsmen of war vessels, for the time-honored words "port" and "starboard" the more prosaic words "right" and "left" has aroused much comment, some regretful, some indignant, some humorous. It is suggested that the change will afford aid and comfort to the landlubber on his first ocean voyage. When he inadvertently announces that he is going "outdoors" instead of "on deck," or "downstairs" instead of " below," or declares that his room is on the top floor," or reports that he has been looking at the phosphorescence over the "back" of the boat, he will be able to feel that he has high authority for his translation of hoary sea terms into the language of every-day landfaring life. One newspaper paragrapher. pictures an old sea-dog of a captain in an emergency ordering a sailor to go to the front and look over the fence and find out what's the matter." The opportunities for quips afforded by the new order are legion. But to be able to poke fun at an innovation is not necessarily to condemn it. The regret and indignation, on the other hand, are probably largely due to a misapprehension of just what the change involves. It applies only to the orders given by the officer on the bridge to the man at the wheel. Instead of the command to " port," the command will be right;" instead of the command to "starboard," it will be "left." The reasons for the change are clear when it is realized what the old practice was. Let us take an example. A battle-ship is coming into harbor in a fog. An officer is on the bridge navigating the ship. A quartermaster is at the wheel. Suddenly a ship looms through the fog on the starboard bow. The battle-ship must go to port to escape a collision. The officer calls out, "Hard a-starboard." The wheelsman repeats the order and spins the wheel to port. The battle-ship sheers off to port and the danger is averted.

Helm and Wheel

steering.

On

The origin of this apparent confusion lies in the change from a helm or tiller to a wheel in With a helm, the steersman, when he wished the ship to go to port, put the helm to starboard. When the wheel was substituted for the helm, the wheel was originally made to move in the same direction as the helm, and the old order was naturally retained. Later the wheel on most vessels-especially steam vessels—was reversed, but still the old command was retained. many sailing craft the logical change has already been made; the captain wishing his boat to go to starboard gives the order ** starboard,” and the wheel is turned to starboard. On the battle-ship, however, ob serve the mental involutions necessary for the execution of this simple maneuver. The officer, seeing that the ship must go to port (to the left), gives the helmsman the order "starboard" (right). The helmsman, hearing the order "starboard" (right), understands that he must turn his wheel to port (to the left). Both officer and helmsman must translate, the one his observation, the other the command which he receives, into diametrically opposite terms. The officer sees "port" and says "starboard;" the helmsman hears "starboard" and acts "port." For the officer the motion of the ship's head which he desires to bring about is the exact opposite of the order which he gives; for the helmsman the order which he receives is the exact opposite of the movement he is to effect.

Now what would happen under Right and Left the new rule? The officer will see that the ship must swing to the left. He will give the order "left." The wheelsman, hearing the order "left," will twirl the wheel to the left. The ship's head will turn to the left. There will be no crossing of lines, no translation of terms, no confusion of ideas. From the moment the officer thinks "left" until the ship turns to the left, there will be involved but one idea, one word, one motion-"left." The result will be simplicity in giving and receiving orders, certainty and rapidity in comprehending and executing them. The need for some change is pointed out by the General Board of the Navy in its statement recommending the adoption of the suggestion of RearAdmiral Schroeder. The Board, at whose head is Admiral Dewey, says:

Every watch officer of experience can recall innumerable cases where, especially with new

steersmen, the command to starboard produced first a motion of the wheel to starboard, and then the proper movement in the opposite direction as the man at the wheel remembered his teachings and reversed his first instinctive motion. Because of the many errors made, sometimes by a careless or sleepy steersman, resulting in a hard-over helm the wrong way, came a cardinal rule for the officer of the deck to personally go and see whether his orders with regard to the helm had been carried out.

The arguments presented by the Board in support of its recommendations are weighty. It is suggested, on the other hand, that it will be unfortunate to have a different practice in our navy from that of other navies and that of the merchant marine. But it is very seldom that any change like this is made simultaneously or unanimously. If the change is good-and the experts at the head of our navy believe it is the best way is to make it and hope that our good example wili be followed. The contention that it is not good to change anything that has been in existence for centuries is one that makes a stronger appeal to sentiment than to practical common sense. In 1846 the term "port" was substituted for the immemorial word "larboard," and the heavens did not fall nor our navy cease to win victories. The only question should be. Is the change a good one? On this question our naval experts are the best judges.

Mr. Morgan's Will

The last will and testament of the late John Pierpont Morgan is a document of more than ordinary interest. Of the confession of faith with which the will opens we speak elsewhere. After reading the testator's orderly and detailed directions, the impression left on the reader's mind will be, we believe, the same as was left on Mr. Morgan's hearers' minds after his recent testimony before the Pujo Committee at Washington; that is to say, the elements of confidence and character are everywhere emphasized. We find these elements, for instance, in the provisions with regard to property standing in Mr. Morgan's name, but really, in his estimation, belonging to his banking firms, and in the direct disposition of his residuary estate without the creation of a trust-often the practice with regard to great estates. We also find these characteristics in the provisions concerning the art collections. There is, of course, special popular interest in regard to the wonderful collections which for many years Mr. Morgan has been gathering of paintings, miniatures, porcelains, and other works of art.

The ownership of these collections passes to Mr. Morgan's son, but the testator expresses the hope that his son will be able, "in such manner as he shall think best, to make a permanent disposition, or from time to time permanent dispositions, of them, or of such portions of them as he may determine." As Mr. Morgan did not find time to devise the best way to render them "permanently available for the instruction and pleas ure of the American people," he confides to his son the distinction of carrying out the intentions which he cherished. On the human side, the public will be impressed by Mr. Morgan's generous bequests to all of his employees, whether in a domestic or a business capacity, and also with the provision for the continuance of all allowances and payments which he had been in the habit of making to all persons and charities. Thus this will seems alive with the testator's characteristic vitality, energy, far-sightedness, and attention to detail. No such document made public in recent times has, we believe, awakened so much public attention or inspired a more respectful and admiring consideration.

JAPAN, CALIFORNIA, AND

THE UNITED STATES

The issue raised between the United States and Japan by the proposed land legislation of California is already serious, and may easily become very serious. There is no present danger of war, but there is serious danger that by a fatuous policy we may make an enemy of a nation of which we might easily make a firm and fast friend, and this without any injury to our National interests or any departure from our wellsettled National policy. The Japanese are a proud, sensitive, and plucky people, with some of the Oriental tendency to seek their national ends by indirection. The Americans are an energetic, pushing, and self-satisfied people, with the provincialism of youth and the tendency to pursue their purpose by a direct path, regardless of the requirements. of diplomatic courtesy. In both nations are unprincipled politicians and an unprincipled yellow press. Whoever at such a time attempts to stir up in America hostile feeling to the Japanese is the enemy of his country. and by the sober-minded majority of Americans is regarded as their enemy. We ask our Japanese friends to remember that

demagogues are also to be found in other democratic communities than America, and that it is harder for us to live with them than for the Japanese, who have only to endure the echoes of their demagogism.

The issue is so grave that it deserves the consideration of all thoughtful citizens. Details of management must be left to the few, but the essential facts in the case and the fundamental principles by which the Nation must be guided ought to be known and understood by all the people. We here attempt to state those facts and principles briefly and clearly.

1. Every nation has a right to determine whom it will receive as settlers and citizens within its territory. For its determination of this question it is not accountable to any other nation. This right is clearly recognized by international law and is freely exercised by all peoples. It underlies the passport system which until recently was in vogue in all European nations and still is maintained by some of them. The people of the United States have a perfect moral and legal right to close their doors to Germans and open them to Italians, or close them to Italians and open them to Germans; to close them to Chinese and open them to Japanese, or close them to Japanese and open them to Chinese. No nation has any right to complain of exclusion. The Japanese have a perfect right to prevent, as they do, Americans from becoming landowners in Japan. If there was any danger that Americans would settle in large numbers in Japan and imperil Japanese industry and Japanese prosperity by their presence, the Japanese would have a perfect right to forbid such American settlements, while leaving their ports open to English, French, or Germans.

2. But we have no right to make a treaty admitting the citizens of a foreign country to our territory and then exclude them. We have no right to make such a treaty and then allow one of the States of the Union to exclude them. We have no right to exercise the right of exclusion in a brutal, brusque, and discourteous manner. If we desire to exercise that right, it is our duty to do so in a courteous manner, without insult, and by amicable agreement if possible.

3. In 1911 the United States made a treaty with Japan which contains (Article I) the following clause:

The citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have liberty to enter,

travel, and reside in the territories of the other; to carry on trade, wholesale and retail; to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses, and shops; to employ agents of their choice, to lease land for residential and commercial purposes, and generally to do any thing incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens or subjects, submitting themselves to the laws and regulations there established.

4. This treaty is the supreme law of the land. The United States Constitution explicitly provides that "all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Senator Root has well said that this clause necessarily implies an expectation that some treaties will be made in contravention of the laws of the States. When such a treaty is made, it is clear that the treaty supersedes and annuls any law of any State which is inconsistent with it.

5. Do the proposed California land laws violate une provisions of this treaty? We do not know, for we do not know what those laws will be when they are finally formulated and passed. We cannot express a judgment of any value respecting a law before it is finally formulated. But if any credence is to be placed on newspaper reports of the purpose of the California legislators, they are endeavoring to frame a law which shall violate the spirit of the treaty, while avoiding express terms which contradict its provisions.

6. Who shall determine whether the land laws of California as finally passed are or are not in conflict with the Japanese treaty? Not the State, but the United States. The right of a State to nullify a Federal statute was claimed by Calhoun; and that right of nullification has been emphatically and at great cost repudiated by the Nation. It cannot now be revived. It is for the people of the Nation, not for the people of California, to determine whether a State law violates an international treaty which by the Constitution is made the supreme law of the land.

7. The President has wisely appealed to the people of California to pass no legislation which contravenes the spirit of the Japanese treaty. Agreement between the Federal and the State authorities is in every way desirable; but if his persuasive argument fails and a law is passed to which the

Japanese take exception, on the ground that it violates the Japanese treaty, the President should take counsel of his advisers on the subject. If, as a result, the Federal Administration comes to the conclusion that the California land law does not violate the treaty, the President should say to the Japanese nation, "We are within our treaty rights." He should protect the people of California with the whole moral and, if necessary, the whole physical power of the Government. If, on the other hand, the Administration comes to the conclusion that the land law does violate the treaty, the President should take instant steps before the Federal courts to have the execution of the land law stayed until the question can be determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, which is the final interpreter of the supreme law of the land, and he should say to the Japanese people, "These land laws will not be executed and the Japanese residents in the United States will not be disturbed under these land laws until this question is settled by the Federal Government." It would have been well if, before the situation reached an acute stage, the President had made it clear both to California and to Japan that he intended to follow this

course.

8. This is the law of the land, and this ought to be the law of the land. In foreign affairs the Nation must act, because foreign Powers cannot and will not be permitted to deal with the separate States, and where the Nation is ultimately responsible it must exclusively and fully meet its responsibility both to foreign nations and to the people of any State in the Union who may feel, as the people of California now feel, that their rights are not sufficiently protected. It was recognition of this fact by our forefathers that led to the substitution of our present National Constitution for the old and loose Articles of Confederation. The people of the United States have the absolute right to determine for themselves who shall and who shall not be admitted within their borders, who may be permanently settled within those borders, who may become citizens of the Nation and with all the privileges and prerogatives of citizenship. Such right cannot

be denied to the people of the United States by the people of any foreign Power; neither can it be denied to the people of the United States by any individual State.

9. If the people of California saw any