ure to the superiority of the education which that country offers her business men. The young German who goes into business has the opportunity of being as thoroughly trained as the young German who goes into chemistry or engineering. It is the partnership between business and science which has made Germany the tremendous power she has become in the business world. In this country, while there has been great regard for education, there has been a disposition to undervalue special training for business men, with the result that a good deal of ground has been lost; that there is widespread ignorance of commercial possibilities in other parts of the world; and that the inability of Americans to use the business opportunities presented in South America and the Far East, and other sections of the world, has become a reproach to the intelligence of the country. Mr. Schiff is quoted as saying, "Business is becoming a profession." He might have said, "Business has become a profession." "It seems fitting," he added, "that the leaders of business in the greatest business centers of the country should through their greatest business organization, the Chamber of Commerce of the city of New York, aid in establishing a college of commerce and administration second to none in the world."

It has been suggested that the site of the old City College, on Lexington Avenue and Twenty-third Street, should be used for the purposes of the new institution; and that an adequate building, both for education and as a museum, should be erected there with the $700,000 already pledged. It ought not to be difficult to secure the money necessary to put this project into effect.

THE WAY TO RAISE MONEY

The campaign to raise four million dollars for the Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association of New York City was cleverly inaugurated by the announcement that certain rich donors had already been "rounded up," and by their munificent gifts had made possible half the sum to be collected. The collection of the other half has gone merrily and successfully forward. The methods have been picturesque. Several clocks have been erected, some at very high altitudes, so as to be legible from a great distance to report the returns. The clocks are illuminated at night.

WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE

Y. W C. A.

HAVE YOU?

The money should be forthcoming.

LE GRAND PARIS"

Since Baron Haussmann remodeled Paris in the days of Napoleon III at a cost of $500,000,000 no such stupendous alterations as M. Marcel Delanney proposes have been considered for the French metropolis.

M. Delanney is Prefect of the Seine. His scheme involves, according to cable despatches, the widening of many streets, the destruction of unsightly shanties and the erection in their places of model houses to be paid for in part out of $40,000,000 already appropriated for this purpose by the Municipal Council, the limiting of the height of buildings to the width of the street on which they are situated, and the laying out of forty-seven additional public gardens, making a total of 128 of these institutions or more than London has.

"Le Grand Paris," as Delanney calls his proposal, also involves the development of the suburbs, where there will be a sudden acquisition of space after the fortifications have been destroyed. A large appropriation has already been made to wipe out these fortifications, which now serve only to provide lairs for the riffraff of Paris; but the Prefect of the Seine wants a further $100,000,000 to construct parks and flowerbeds where the old defenses now are. would convert the open spaces about the city and the hills of the Seine, Marne, and Oise Rivers into huge gardens connected

He

by a promenade about twenty-five miles in length.

At present there are nearly two hundred inhabitants to the acre in Paris, twice as many as in London. The construction of "Le Grand Paris" would give the city nearly six times as much territory as it has at present, reducing this congestion and thereby lowering rents and the cost of living. It is worth noting that M. Delanney proposes wielding the power of excess condemnation, so often an issue in American municipal elections. By taking over more space than is needed for promenades and parks, and selling this at an increased figure when the improvements have been consummated, the city might reduce the cost of these improvements.

WHAT NEXT?

A SOLUTION OF THE MEXICAN
PROBLEM

In a notable speech made last week the British Prime Minister announced that the Government of Great Britain not only would refrain from doing anything to thwart the United States in its. Mexican policy, but would respect the right of the United States to determine the solution of the Mexican problem, and expressed confidence that the solution would be one of intelligence and fairness. He frankly said that this attitude of Great Britain had been very greatly fostered by Mr. Bryce, the former British Ambassador at Washington, who knows the American people and the spirit of the American Government better than any other living Briton. At this writing it is clear that the rule of President Huerta cannot last much longer. Whether he resigns or not, his Government, for some weeks hanging upon the mistaken hope of European and British support, must eventually fill to the ground.

But the fall of Huerta is not the end of the problem. It is only the very beginning. It is the negative part. The positive and constructive part is yet to come.

America cannot safely or justly leave indefinitely the persons and property of Americans and Europeans unprotected on Mexican territory. We have left them unprotected quite long enough.

We cannot safely or wisely invite the European Powers to join with us in establishing

an orderly and stable government in Mexico. The spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, which this country is not yet ready to abandon, forbids.

We cannot safely or effectively intervene alone. Such intervention would be resented by Mexicans of all parties, by the Central American republics, and almost certainly by the South American republics, as a confirmation of their suspicions that the United States is a selfish and aggrandizing country. The problem seems to be hopelessly complicated and difficult. We say cause in our judgment it is very much simpler than it appears. We think there is a method of solution at hand which is practical, efficient, and open to none of the objections enumerated above. We state this solution briefly, as follows:

seems,

"be

Let the President of the United States call upon Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, the three greatest states of Latin America, to join this Government in framing a policy for establishing order in Mexico and in sending a commission of four special Ambassadors, one Chilean, one Brazilian, one Argentinian, and one citizen of the United States, to Mexico to see that that policy is carried out. Let us in this joint way say to Mexico that the North and South American continents cannot tolerate the disorder in Mexico, which injuriously affects the entire world; that human life must be protected; that property must be respected; that the constitutional laws of Mexico must be observed; and that popular rights as they are outlined upon the statute-books of Mexico must be maintained.

It is said that intervention by the United States would create a long and disastrous war. Certainly the combined armies and navies of Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and the United States can enforce upon Mexico any policy of justice which those four great nations determine upon. Great Britain and, we believe, the European nations would readily and happily assent to this plan. It would not only stop bloodshed, pillage, and injustice in Mexico, but it would create throughout the entire length and breadth of Latin America the conviction that the United States has at heart not its own selfish interests but the welfare, joint and neighborly, of the two American continents.

The Panama Canal is about to be opened, and the United States is making every effort to promote friendship, for political, social,

and commercial reasons, with Latin America. Here we have a great opportunity to put an end to an intolerable annoyance at our own border and to develop a spirit of fraternity and co-operation with the Latin-American peoples. We know the difficulties of concerted action by nations. We know that the European concert has often been sadly out of tune. And yet does not the idea of an American concert for the settlement of PanAmerican affairs, which shall succeed in a kind of work in which the European concert has so often failed, appeal to the imagination as well as to reason and common sense?

THE PINDELL INCIDENT
There are two ways in which the foreign

service of the United States can be viewed.

One is presented in the subjoined extract from what purports to be a letter from a United States Senator of Illinois to an editor of the same State:

It is up to the Administration to appoint an Ambassador to St. Petersburg, but it is a position which, if offered to you, would not necessitate your losing control of, nor association with, your paper.

Now, the idea of Secretary Bryan is, that if you would accept the place of Ambassador to St. Petersburg, and all the honor that goes with the position, you could resign in a year-say Oct. 1, 1914-and return to your paper before losing track of your business affairs, and yet have the great honor attached to the place.

There will be no treaties to adjudicate and no political affairs to bother with, for the Administration will see to that for a year, and you would not be tied to St. Peters burg, but would have trips to Berlin and Vienna and the other capitals of Europe, and also Stockholm, and perhaps to Copenhagen, and all the attendant delights that go with such trips.

You would meet with the delightful companionships of the English and other officers connected with the various legations at St. Petersburg, and would be socially and officially treated, as my letters to those abroad would serve you.

I think you have a little daughter. Think what it would mean to her all the remainder of her life to say that her father had been Minister to Russia, and of all the honor and prestige that will go with it to the third and fourth generations.

If you will accept this position for a year, kindly wire me at once. I have the Secretary on the telephone and am writing this letter after the most confidential conference with him.

No diplomatic matters will be taken up during your service, and you will have all the honors of having been Ambassador to Russia; but if you. accept this position it must be with the understanding that you will resign on the 1st of October, 1914, and then you will be able to, and no

doubt glad to, return to your business interests in Peoria and your paper.

Senator James Hamilton Lewis, to whom the authorship of this letter has been ascribed, denies its authenticity, and explains that it is the forged creation of one of his former employees. He has said that it was based in part on the memory of a stenographer who had taken down some correspondence he had with Mr. Pindell, the editor aforesaid; but he does not give the true correspondence, or specify the culprit. If such an offense as Senator Lewis is said to have charged was committed, the Senator owes it not so much to himself as to the American people to submit to the public the evidence on which his charge is based. Whether the letter is spurious or not, however, it expresses a view of public service that many politicians hold.

Moreover, in a statement made by Mr. Bryan, the Secretary of State, this same view of the diplomatic service is reflected. After explaining that the President knew Mr. Pindell personally, his character, his ability, his exceptional fitness for the duties of such a place, and that Mr. Pindell did not seek the appointment, or anticipate that it would be offered to him, Mr. Bryan continues :

In response to the offer he frankly stated that he would be glad to serve the Administration in any way in which the President thought he could serve successfully, but that he did not feel that he could conscientiously obligate himself to serve the full ordinary term of a foreign appointment, because he did not feel that he could leave his business so long. The President asked him to accept it for as long a time as he could stay, and he consented.

This is a full statement of a matter which has been grossly misrepresented. The President will not allow malicious representations to interfere with his right to nominate to the Senate the best-qualified men within his choice for conspicuous and responsible positions.

According to this view, the fit person for a diplomatic post of such importance is not a man of experience in the foreign service of the United States, for Mr. Pindell, whom Mr. Bryan apparently includes among "the best-qualified men," has had no experience in the diplomatic service. According to this view, the purpose is not to make the public service paramount by selecting a man who will take up that service with the expectation of making it his prime concern, but to allow the public service to become secondary by selecting a man who will not be expected to let the public service interfere with his private business; for it is specifically stated that, in view of his private business,

Mr. Pindell would accept his appointment only "for as long a time as he could stay."

That this view has been expressed with reference to the post at St. Petersburg, which more than any other diplomatic position in Europe calls for the exercise of wisdom based on diplomatic experience, makes the expression of it all the more significant.

Contrasted with this view is another that can best be conveyed by a brief rehearsal of the careers of men who have exemplified it.

Dr. Andrew D. White, who had been a professor of history, was appointed by President Grant United States Commissioner to Santo Domingo, then by the same President Honorary United States Commissioner to the Paris Exposition, then almost immediately afterwards Minister to Germany, then by President Harrison Minister to Russia, then -by President Cleveland member of the Venezuela Commission, then by President McKinley Ambassador to Germany, where he remained five years, meantime being a member of the Peace Commission at The Hague.

Whitelaw Reid, after having twice declined diplomatic appointments, was appointed by President Harrison Minister to France, by President McKinley Special Ambassador to Queen Victoria's Jubilee, by President McKinley member of the Peace Commission that terminated the Spanish War, by President Roosevelt Special Ambassador to the Coronation of King Edward VII, and again by President Roosevelt as Ambassador to England.

Dr. David Jayne Hill, who had studied at the Universities of Berlin and Paris, and who, after serving as a college president, spent nearly three years in studying public law in Europe, and was then Professor of European Diplomacy in the School of Comparative Jurisprudence and Diplomacy at Washington, was appointed by President McKinley Assistant Secretary of State, then by President Roosevelt Minister to Switzerland, then by the same President to the Netherlands, then by the same President Ambassador to Germany, meantime serving the cause of international peace at the Hague Conference and on the Hague Tribunal.

Henry White, who had studied not only at home but abroad, was appointed by President Arthur Secretary of the American Legation at Vienna, then transferred to the Legation at London, then promoted by President Cleveland to the Secretaryship of the Legation, repeatedly acting as Chargé

d'Affaires and representing the United States at an important conference, then, after being recalled by President Cleveland during his second Administration, reappointed by President McKinley Secretary, of the Embassy at London, appointed by President Roosevelt. to the Conference in Rome which resulted in the establishment of the International Institute of Agriculture, again by the same President to the important Algeciras Conference, then in turn by the same President Ambassador to Italy and Ambassador to France, then, after being recalled by President Taft for no reason connected with the public service, made Chairman of the American delegation to the Pan-American Conference at Buenos Aires, and then Special Ambassador to Chile.

So we might continue with the account of the careers of such men as George von Lengerke Meyer, William Woodville Rockhill, Oscar S. Straus, and Thomas J. O'Brien. In such a list, too, should be included Maurice F. Egan, who was appointed Minister to Denmark by President Roosevelt, kept at the same post by President Taft, and has been retained in the diplomatic service by President Wilson.

In the careers of such men as these is presented a view of the diplomatic service of the United States which can be compared to that expressed in the Pindell incident only by the way of contrast.

According to this view, the allurement of the diplomatic service lies not in the opportunity of a pleasant sojourn in European capitals without undue interference with one's private business, but in the opportunity of rendering great service to one's country, and thereby great service to the cause of good international relations.

In the Pindell incident the President has been given an occasion for making clear his choice between these two views. It does not seem possible that there should be any doubt as to which view he will choose.

A SIGNIFICANT STRAW A meeting of some New York State legislators was held last week in New York City, a meeting in itself not important, but which as a straw that shows which way the wind blows may be full of significance. According to report, twenty-six of the Assemblymen recently elected met, and fifteen others sympathized with the meeting, but were prevented from

attending and telegraphed their regrets. These forty-one may be enough, if they act together, to hold the balance of power in the Assembly. And what gives significance to the gathering is the fact that they include men classed in each of the three political parties-Democratic, Progressive, and Republican—and that they met, as reported, to organize and to plan how they could best co-operate to rid the parties of boss rule and the State of corrupt government. Added significance is lent to this meeting by the apparently well-authenticated report that Mr. Glynn, the present Governor of the State, is planning to urge on the Legislature when it meets both a genuine Direct Primary Law and a Workman's Compensation Law.

There is really occasion for only two parties in this country, and there are only two fundamental issues; and these two issues are so closely connected as to be only different aspects of the same issue.

Lord Macaulay has well pointed out that there are men who are tempermentally attracted by the charm of habit, and other men who are temperamentally attracted by the charm of novelty. The first are conservatives; the second are liberals.

There are also men who are temperamentally attracted by the power and efficiency of strong organization, and other men who are attracted by the joys of an unhampered individual liberty. The first are Nationalists,

the second are anti-Nationalists.

Generally, though not always, the conservatives are anti-Nationalists, the liberals are Nationalists. The conservatives think that the progress toward democratic government and toward centralized government, which has gone on simultaneously in America, has gone quite far enough. They fear that further progress toward a strong government will end in the destruction of individual liberty. The liberals think that individual liberty and the general welfare will both be conserved by a strong government, because they believe that the people are quite competent so to manage a strong government as to make it promote both the general welfare and individual liberty. This distinction, based on difference of opinion, is in this country somewhat obscured by the fact that opposi tion to boss rule involves not only an intellectual view but also a moral conviction; but in the main this distinction may serve to differentiate the great body of conservatives from the great body of liberals. The con

servatives believe in government of the people by their representatives; the liberals believe in government of their representatives by the people, the representatives being merely the instruments for carrying out the people's will.

The various planks in the Progressive programme-the short ballot, the direct primary, the initiative, the referendum, the recall are simply measures proposed to increase the power of the people in the government of the country. Not all who believe in such an increase believe in all these methods. If the Progressive party must wait until it can convince the people of the wisdom of all the planks in its platform, it may have to wait a long time. But if all the men in all parties who believe in government by the people, and therefore in a strong government, can come together to press forward one means after another which promises to make the government stronger and give the people more power in the government, the progress may be much more rapid; certainly the issue will be much more clear.

The agreement of forty-one Assemblymenelect last week to devise means to overthrow boss rule is an important indication, and not the only one, that men of the progressive and Nationalist temperament are beginning to come together, not so much because they are agreed on the same measures as because they are animated by the same spirit and are pursuing the same end. It gives some hope that the day may not be far distant when we shall no longer have two factions in both the old parties, one conservative and anti-Nationalist, the other liberal and Nationalist; but two parties, one holding fast to the traditions of the past and opposed to any increase in the power of the people, the other inspired by hopes of the future and eager for a government not by the few, however chosen, over the many, but by the many, employing the few as their servants to carry out their will.

What is to become of the Progressive party as an organization we do not know. But we very much hope to see all those who believe in the capacity of the plain people, and in a government absolutely controlled by them, co-operating in a united endeavor for a strong government under popular control.

The meeting in New York is a straw which indicates that the winds are blowing in that direction.