maintain the highest standard of living in history, a standard far above that in most countries of the world at this or any other time. This represents a remarkable recovery from the great losses incurred by the Nation in the World War."

A signal proof of prosperity is that there has been practically no unemployment. That, in turn, is evidence of expansion in manufacturing, in railway receipts, and in business generally, and this Mr. Hoover shows by facts and figures. He points out also that efficiency, economic methods of work, and the advance of scientific research and invention have formed a distinct and valuable factor in our increased prosperity.

It is not possible that conditions should be the same in every industry. Mr. Hoover points out as exceptions the New England textile industry, two or three sections of the agricultural industry, and the bituminous-coal industry. Yet, looking at the situation as a whole, he finds that these exceptions and the peculiar situation that has existed in cotton production but is now improving have not affected his comment quoted above.

The Secretary states that a more satisfactory relation exists between the prices of farm products and other things than we had three years ago; that there has been a slight increase this year in retail prices; that building construction has increased enormously; that housing standards have been raised; that manufacturers have gained seven per cent over the year previous; that imports have gained seventeen per cent over the previous years and that exports in quan

of the Farmer-Labor Senator, Mr. Shipstead, of Minnesota, to secure a tie with the Democrats, and upon the vote of Vice-President Dawes, as presiding officer, to break the tie in their favor. Now the Republicans will have a clear majority. It is a majority of only one, but it suffices.

This is all on the assumption that no means will be found of excluding Mr. Vare of Pennsylvania, Mr. Smith of Illinois, or Mr. Gould of Maine from the Senate before he takes his seat. The title of each of these men to a seat in the Senate will be challenged; but as yet it seems doubtful whether it can be challenged until each one is provisionally, at least, a member of the Senate with power to vote on the organization which will control the Senate committees.

Mr. Gould's right to his seat will be challenged on grounds which were raised during the election campaign. It was alleged, and denied, that he was responsible for a contribution of $100,000 to the campaign fund of the Premier of New Brunswick as an inducement for favorable action on railway legislation in aid of a railway in which Mr. Gould was interested. There have also been charges that Gould spent more than the State allowed in his election campaign; but Mr. Gould was cleared of these charges before the election took place. Among those who attacked Mr. Gould was the Republican Governor of the State, Mr. Brewster. Because Mr. Brewster is regarded as a favorite of the Ku Klux Klan, many Democratic voters, strongly anti-Klan, voted for Mr. Gould. It appears that these various accusations tended to swell the Gould vote. At any rate, Mr. Gould was elected by a ma

from evidence offered in court in advance of judgment. Twelve men, most of whom work with their hands in the District of Columbia, will say when all the evidence is in whether these two men from the seats of the mighty have been proved guilty or innocent of crime.

As much as this, however, may be said: Fall and Doheny, guilty or innocent, should have been tried and the fact established long ago. Their prominence probably had little to do with the long delay. All over this country obscure men remain untried through long periods after indictment. This naval oil lease case, too, was extremely complicated and required more time for preparation than the ordinary criminal case does. Still, it is difficult to believe that there is justification for such delay. The fault is the fault of nobody in particular, but of the criminal court system-a system fallen into rather than developed― of the United States. Fall's rawest cowboy or Doheny's youngest driller's helper might, if he could have contrived actions so complicated, have secured a delay as long.

The fact remains, none the less, that when men of such prominence as these are indicted delay in bringing them to trial increases the suspicion, groundless as it may be, that wealth can influence the progress of the courts. All criminal cases should be tried more promptly than they ordinarily are in the United States. It may be that no special effort should be made to bring such cases as this to prompt trial, but the necessity for a revision of our criminal court system is the more strongly suggested by them.

The Supreme Court on Zoning

also; that, in short, "the fiscal year 1925-6 has been one never surpassed in our history in the volume of production and consumption, in the physical quantity of exports and imports, and in the rate of wages."

to the ratio of nine to one.

Fall and Doheny on Trial
THREE years after the story of their

alleged misdeeds became public, Albert B. Fall, once Secretary of the Interior, long a United States Senator, and Edward L. Doheny, millionaire and oil magnate, are on trial for conspiracy to defraud the United States Government in connection with the lease of the Elk Hills Naval Oil Reserve in California. It is not worth while to attempt here a review of the evidence that has been submitted, and it is not the province of a public journal to draw conclusions

uses of land by zoning laws has gradually extended in many States and in hundreds of municipalities. As a rule the State laws that give towns and cities the right to pass and enforce zoning ordinances have been sustained by the State courts. New Jersey and Georgia, possibly one or two other States, are exceptions. Now we have a decision of the United States Supreme Court which sustains the ultimate Constitutional principle on which such State laws must rest. It is, in effect, a broad answer to the question, Do zoning laws in deir common kinds of restriction derive property-owners of liberty and property

rights without due process of law and contrary to the Constitutions of the State and the United States?

The case just decided originated in Euclid Village, a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio. An inferior Federal court had held the local ordinance unconstitutional and void, and an appeal was taken to the United States Supreme Court on the specific question whether the ordinance did violate the property rights of certain landowners by unreasonable and confiscatory regulations under the guise of the police power. So in its last analysis this case raised anew the nature and true extent of governmental police power.

It is beyond doubt that ordinances may protect the people of a town from fire, accident, or disease. It is equally true that they must not arbitrarily interfere unless public safety, health, morals, or general welfare is involved. But all those essentials are changing, and old definitions must change with them; this decision, for instance, points out that our present traffic laws would before the advent of automobiles have been condemned as totally arbitrary and unreasonable. It says also: "Until recent years, urban life was comparatively simple; but with the great increase and concentration of population, problems have developed, and constantly are developing, which require, and will continue to require, additional restrictions in respect of the use and occupation of private lands in urban communities. Regulations, the wisdom, necessity, and validity of which, as applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained, a century ago, or even a half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive."

Throughout, this decision indicates that the State laws rightly recognize the fact that any definition of the police power must be subject to enlargement as conditions change. Therefore it declares: "It is enough for us to determine, as we do, that the ordinance in its general scope and dominant features, so far as its provisions are here involved, is a valid exercise of authority, leaving other provisions to be dealt with as cases arise directly involving them."

The various zoning laws passed by States have recognized the fact that there are often conflicting interests involved; in this case, for instance, it was

claimed that, if the zoning law were upheld, land worth $10,000 an acre for industrial purposes would bring only $2,500 an acre for residential use; on the other hand, the right of the people of Euclid Village to a proper and desirable development of the neighborhood is in a true sense a property right. For this reason all zoning laws provide methods of adjustment and of making exceptions to the rules when injustice or wrongful hardship is involved.

Comments of the press in this decision regard it as a substantial victory for the wide and common-sense doctrine that a municipality should be able to check the ruin of residential sections and to encourage the right sort of development. Judge Sutherland, who delivered the opinion, even quoted with approval the apothegm that "a nuisance may be a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of in the barnyard."

Congress Can Limit Prescriptions LIVE judges of the United States Su

FIVE

preme Court uphold the Constitutionality of the law which limits the quantity of medicinal whisky which physicians may prescribe.

This means that there is nothing to prevent Congress from substituting its judgment for the judgment of the individual physician in deciding to what extent alcohol is necessary or valuable as a medicine.

From this decision four judges of the Supreme Court record their dissent.

Among the majority are two judges most widely known for their liberal views the oldest member of the Court in both years and service, Justice Holmes, and the writer of the opinion, Justice Brandeis. The others in the majority are Chief Justice Taft, Justice Van Deventer, and Justice Sanford. In the minority are Justice Sutherland, who wrote the dissenting opinion, Justice McReynolds, Justice Butler, and Justice Stone.

To many physicians this decision will seem to be the Court's approval of an invasion of their right, as scientific men, to be governed by the facts as they understand them and not by the opinion of a political body. What the Supreme Court decided, however, is not whether the judgment of Congress is better than that of the physician, but whether Congress has the right to substitute its opin

ion-better or worse-for that of the individual physician. In this case the right of Congress rests upon that provision of the Constitution which gives Congress power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the prohibition of the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating beverages. The remedy, if any is needed, lies, according to this decision, not with the courts, but with Congress. Of course, the Supreme Court would not uphold Congress in carrying the Eighteenth Amendment into execution by unreasonable law. Sufficient medical opinion, however, against the need of whisky as a medicine was laid before Congress to make it clear, in the opinion of the majority of the Court, that the limitation upon prescribing alcohol was not unreasonable.

It is interesting to note that in upholding the provision against prescribing malt liquor the decision of the Supreme Court, in a former case, was unanimous.

The Strike Threat in Canada

A

LTHOUGH an average of eighty-five per cent of the 15,000 conductors, trainmen, and yardmen employed on Canadian railroads voted recently for a "peaceful withdrawal from the railroad service," and although international leaders of the railroad brotherhoods are in Montreal watching the situation, it is not generally believed in Canadian Government and railroad circles that a strike will ensue.

Events leading up to the strike vote began in February of this year, when the employees gave notice of a desire to open negotiations for a new wage agreement. The request was for a six per cent increase, to bring Canadian wages on an equality with United States wages for the same classes of work; and the request was also made that in the event of further increases being granted in the United States similar increases should automatically become effective in Canada. It was pointed out that prior to the war Canadian railroad workers received an average of six per cent more than United States workers, and that this differential was really essential on account of higher living costs and exceptional climatic conditions.

The railroad companies declinig to meet the request, on the ground the the increases asked were not warrated

have caused earnest protests. Rabbi Wise, of New York, and Dr. Weizmann, world head of Zionism, are prominent in support of that cause. On the other hand, Henry Morgenthau, formerly American Ambassador to Turkey and a Jew, declares himself completely in accord with Dr. Pritchett and considers Zionism "the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history."

Dr. Wise thought the report disheartening and commented bitterly that he supposed that the Carnegie Endowment was for international peace rather than to foment strife and deepen misunderstanding. Dr. Weizmann asserted that Palestine had the climate and potentialities of southern California and that peace exists between Jew and Arab. Mr. Samuel Untermyer said that Zionism is not a "religious or political undertaking, and that the relations between the Arab and Jewish populations were never so cordial as they now are."

Doubtless this is but the beginning of a discussion that will continue for a long time and with earnestness, not to say acerbity.

China and the
Rights of Foreigners

T

WELVE nations have told China that she must bring order into her own affairs and modernize her judicial system before they can think of giving up the extra-territorial rights of their citizens in her territory. Under existing treaties, these rights mean that their citizens are not subject to Chinese laws, but to the jurisdiction of their own officials in China. And a former Chinese Premier and Minister of Justice, Dr. Wang Chung-hui, one of the most eminent of Chinese jurists, has given his adherence to the opinion.

This is the result of the complicated and delicate task which the Commission on Extra-territorial Jurisdiction in China has carried through in the midst of the Chinese civil war during the past year. Mr. Silas H. Strawn, the American representative, was chairman of the Commission, whose joint report has just been made public. The investigation made by the Commission was authorized at the Washington Conference in 1922. The upshot of the careful study then undertaken is that China does not yet possess a legal system to which either Americans or Europeans can agree to submit themselves. The Commission makes a series of suggestions for reform of the legislative and judicial structure

Wide World

of China, in consideration of which the present rights of foreigners might progressively be surrendered. But, in view of the chaotic state of political affairs in China, no one can say when such reforms might be put into effect.

The report repeats the well-known fact that the rule of military chieftains has supplanted the control of the country by the administration at Peking, which is too weak and poor to make its will effective even if it were inclined to act on the recommendations of the Commission. And the fact that a Chinese jurist signs the report seems sufficient proof that it is well based. If the Chinese accept his view, it is an admission that the country is not ready to take over the supervision of all foreigners. If they reject it, that is evidence that the Government at Peking, by which he was made China's delegate, is not representative of the country. In either case, there is no basis for the surrender now of extra-territorial privileges.

Under existing conditions, there are only two things for foreigners in China to do. One is to withdraw from the country. The Chinese themselves would country. The Chinese themselves would be the first to regret that course if any one proposed it seriously. The other is to maintain the position they now have legally, and wait until their representatives can deal with some Government in China which can give real force to

A

A Case for a Court

DIFFERENCE of opinion be tween neighbors can sometimes be settled by conversation. When the difference is too great or the issues at stake too serious for that, it is necessary for them to get some impartial person to decide the question or else take it to court-if they are to avoid a fight.

Our difference with Mexico over the meaning and equity of the Mexican laws affecting the property rights of foreigners appears to be of that order. We have been discussing the case with Mexico for several years in one form or another, and we have come to no conclusion. Each side stands firm in its position, with no prospect of a compromise agree