The New York" Times " announces in one of its headlines that "Governor

Dix is in full control." We wish he were, but he is not. This is not his fault; it is the fault of the Constitution of the State of New York. The Governor of that State has certain important but narrowly defined powers. The Constitution does not give him, as the Constitution in a democracy should give its chief executive, "full control" of the administration of the State. In this respect the Federal Constitution is far more democratic than many of our State Constitutions. The President of the United States appoints all heads of departments. He can remove any or all of them. The people, therefore, have a right to hold him responsible for the conduct of those departments. If the country approves the conduct of the Interior Department under Secretary Ballinger, the credit goes to the account of President Taft. If it disapproves, the debit goes to the account of President Taft. But the Governor of the State of New York does not appoint the heads of departments in the State. They are elected. If Mr. Bensel's administration of the engineering work in the State is good, that is not to Governor Dix's credit. If it is unsatisfactory to Governor Dix or to the people of the State, neither the Governor nor the people have any remedy. The power of removal given to the President confers on the people through the President a quasi power of recall. State.

The people could then hold him responsible for the administration of the affairs of the State. That they now cannot do. The man who really appointed the heads of departments in the State of New York is Mr. Murphy, the Tammany chief; and the people have no way of holding him responsible for his appointments.

LAW AND ORDER IN THE PHILIPPINES

Mr. Dickinson, Secretary of War, and General Edwards, Chief of the Insular Bureau, recently returned from a trip around the world, their longest stay having been in the Philippines. Both officials have now published their impressions. The Secretary's account is in the form of a special report to the President; General Edwards's is in his annual report as Chief of the Bureau of Insular Affairs. Bothaccounts are primarily interesting because of the light thrown upon present-day conditions in the islands. At last it can be announced that, whenever an American quits the Philippine Civil Service, he is, as far as possible, to be succeeded by a Fili pino. Such a policy could never be carried out if peaceful conditions did not obtain in the islands. Even the "head-hunting tribes"-those which have had a passion for decapitation-in the north now feel safe in their lives and property, and are devoting themselves to agriculture, enjoying meanwhile, more of the comforts of life than at any previous time, while the non-Christian tribes in the south have found out that the American Government is not exploiting them, but that everything done in the way of control results to their immediate benefit. No reduction has been made in the number of United States troops in the islands, but no call upon them seems likely in the

They have no such power in the One reform greatly needed in many of our States is the adoption of the Federal principle: the election of one Executive head with power to appoint and to remove all heads of departments. Governor Dix should be "in full control."

1

immediate future, so General Edwards says; their continued presence, he thinks, may be considered valuable merely for moral effect. The Constabulary, operating from nearly a hundred and forty stations, also serves as a military force, and, as such, demonstrated its fitness with the two cases of disorder above mentioned. Besides this service, the Constabulary, as Secretary Dickinson points out, has been efficient as an auxiliary force in sanitary work, especially during epidemics. While the commissioned officers of the Constabulary are generally Americans, a number of Filipinos are also officers, and the policy is to fill vacancies by the appointment of Filipinos as rapidly as they meet the requirements. Thus, among the natives, the Constabulary is becoming increasingly respected. The men and the native noncommissioned officers are constantly conciliating the people towards the administration, are learning the English language and habits, and are thus the medium of wholesome influences upon the people. As an indication of loyalty, Mr. Dickinson relates asking a member of the Constabulary, in the formerly wild Bontoc country in northern Luzon, whether or not he would stand by our flag in the case of trouble with a foreign power. The man answered: "Do you think I would hesitate to do that? Did I not recently, in the discharge of my duty, when ordered, fire upon and kill one of my own townsmen who was defying the enforcement of the law?"

CAPITAL, LABOR, AND

THE PUBLIC

That the influential capitalists of the country are more and more taking a broad view of their duties and responsibilities with regard to labor on the one hand and the public welfare on the other is strikingly indicated by two addresses given before the Quill Club of New York at a recent meeting, one by Mr. Paul Morton, President of the Equitable Life Insurance Company, and the other by Mr. George W. Perkins, until recently a partner of the firm of Messrs. J. P. Morgan & Co. The Quill Club is a discussion club, composed of thoughtful New Yorkers of various professions. The subject under discussion was World Business. Mr. Morton made a plea for

the industrial combination, "call it Trust if you will," assuming, however, that the country was determined to place these combinations under Government regulation. He regarded the right relations between labor and capital as forming the most important element in the industrial progress of the United States and the development of its commerce with the rest of the world. It is of special interest when Mr. Morton, a railway man by industrial training, speaks of the labor question in the following terms:

The real object of a labor union should be the true and ultimate welfare of labor, of the employer, and of the country in which it does business. I am a great believer in organized labor, but it is a big mistake to misdirect itself by attempting to bring a good man down to the level of a poor man. Its aim should be to encourage the man who wants to work and who is efficient, and to undertake to educate the inferior man to become as good as the best and thereby increase the production of its organization as a whole. Personally, I think it should stand for and not discourage piece-work. Organized labor and organized capital should both stand for efficiency and do everything possible to create wealth. I am sure there is no sensible man who will not entirely approve of a labor organization which has efficiency as one of its chief reasons for existing. Without co-operation between labor and capital we cannot meet the competition of

the world.

GEORGE W. PERKINS ON "WORLD BUSINESS"

In a remarkable address on the same occasion, which is published in full in the "Churchman " for December 31, Mr. George W. Perkins advocates combination in industry, which he prefers, however, to call cooperation in industry. Mr. Perkins traced the growth of the idea that industry is war-war between competitors, war between labor and capital, and even war between nations-and asserts, what we heartily believe to be true, that civilization has reached a stage where the injury of one group of citizens means really the injury of all the citizens. He referred to the fact that the recently organized International Steel Institute has adopted as the motto of its seal or emblem, “Right is might: Co-operation;" and added that only a few years ago if these same men had met, it is safe to say that every one of them, if asked for a design for a seal for

an International Steel Association, would have said that the wording should be,' Might is right: Competition."" In pursuance of the principle of co-operation, Mr. Perkins, who is perhaps the foremost practical authority in the United States on this subject, urges that the relations between labor and capital should be cemented by genuine profit-sharing. "You cannot spend a million dollars on the education of one generation without having a million of questions raised by the next generation. As a result of the educational process that has been going on [Mr. Perkins had just referred to the great sums of money given by the captains of industry to establish schools, colleges, and libraries], one of the questions raised by the present generation is, What is the proper division of profits as between capital and labor?" Profit-sharing, according to Mr. Perkins's definition, must not be confused with the payment of wages. The wage-worker desires to know and has a right to know whether the payment he receives for his service, be his wages much or little, is a "fair proportion of what is made in the business of which he is a partner." The entire address is worth reading, for it is one of the soundest expositions we have lately seen of the threefold partnership of capitalist, laborer, and consumer. A pleasant and significant incident occurred in connection with this address. At a certain point in the reading of his manuscript, at the end of a sentence which completed a statement about the phenomenal growth of the idea of honest dealing and the moral responsibility of corporations, Mr. Perkins emphasized the fact that these ideals had recently made more rapid progress; then he paused and added: "When I was dictating this paper and had reached this point, my stenographer interjected, And Teddy did it!' and I did not object to the interruption.' This incident was greeted by the Quill Club with rounds of applause.

The proposal of the Interborough Company for the extension of the existing subway system in New York City has received strong support from another quarter. Several weeks ago, at the re

quest of Mayor Gaynor, the Chamber of Commerce and the Merchants' Association appointed a Joint Committee to study the subway situation and advise the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. The Committee was made up of prominent and public-spirited citizens, headed by former Mayor Seth Low. Four sub-committees studied the transit problem thoroughly; and the main Committee has now embodied the findings of those bodies in a comprehensive report. The Committee expresses its unanimous hope that the city authorities will accept the offer of the Interborough, with possible modification in details, and that they will accept it promptly and put an end to a situation that has become intolerable. The main reasons advanced for preferring the Interborough offer are: The benefit of having one complete system, the shortening of the lease of the present subway by fifteen years, the assurance that the city will have an operator not only for the proposed additions but for any further extensions that the city may decide to make in the future, the assurance of an early beginning of the work, the leaving to the city of money for other needed public improvements, and the assurance of a single five-cent fare over the entire system. The Committee also considers the main argument which is advanced against the adoption of the Interborough offer, namely, that it means the adoption of the principle of monopoly in future subway operation, rather than the principle of competition. This argument is based upon the belief that competition is more likely to secure satisfactory operation for both of the two systems than regulation would be in the case of a single system. This argument the Committee does not believe to be strong enough" to prevail against the advantages which have been shown to inhere in a complete system owned by the city, upon which only a single fare is charged, upon which universal transfers will be given, and the operation of which is subject to the control of the Public Service Commission." It appears to the Committee that the argument in favor of competition is based in the public mind very largely upon temporary conditions. It is led to believe that "the quality of service given by any