Post" would support such a movement only on condition that it was not part of a larger movement for the betterment of social conditions. But this is not all. In the struggle for honest politics there is no more a place for the liar than there is for the thief, and in a movement designed to put an end to the dominion of the thief but little good can be derived from the assistance of the liar. Of course objection will be made to my use of this language. My answer is that I am using it merely scientifically and descriptively, and because no other terms express the facts with the necessary precision. In the article in which the " Evening Post" comes to the defense of those in present control of the Republican party in New York State, whom it has affected to oppose in the past, the "Evening Post," through whatever editor personally wrote the article, practiced every known form of mendacity. Republican party, because the "Evening me, but the quotation is substantially, if not verbally, accurate. That statement in this letter to Harriman is of course on its face absolutely incompatible with any thought that I was asking him for campaign funds, for it is of course out of the question that I could tell him equally well what I had to say after election if it referred in any possible way to getting money before election. This is so clear that any pretense of misunderstanding is proof positive of the basest dishonesty in whoever wrote the article in question. As a matter of fact, when Mr. Harriman called it was to complain that the National Committee would not turn over for the use of the State campaign in which he was interested funds to run that campaign, and to ask me to tell Cortelyou to give him aid for the State campaign. Mr. Cortelyou is familiar with the facts. In other words, the statement of the "Evening Post" is not only false and malicious, is not only in direct contradiction of the facts, but is such that it could only have been made by a man who, knowing the facts, deliberately intended to pervert them. Such an act stands on a level of infamy with the worst act ever performed by a corrupt member of a legislature or city official, and stamps the writer with the same moral brand that stamps the bribetaker. Probably the "Evening Post" regards the decalogue as outworn; but if it will turn to it and will read the eighth and ninth commandments, it will see that bearing false witness is condemned as strongly as theft itself. To take but one instance out of the many in this article, the "Evening Post" says: "It was Roosevelt who I have seen only a telegraphic abstract of the article, apparently containing quotations from it. Practically every statement made in these quotations is a falsehood. asked Harriman to come to the White House secretly, who took his money to buy votes in New York, and who afterwards wrote to My Dear Sherman ''—yes, the same Sherman-reviling the capitalist to whom he had previously written, To but one more shall I allude. The saying: 'You and I are practical men.' article speaks of my having attacked corNot only is every important statement porations, and, referring directly to my in this sentence false, but the writer Ohio speeches, of my having "sought to who wrote it knew it was false. As far inflame the mob and make mischief.' In as I was concerned, every man visited the those speeches the prime stand I took was White House openly, and Mr. Harriman against mob violence as shown by the among the others. I took no money labor people who are engaged in confrom Mr. Harriman secretly or openly to troversy with a corporation. My statebuy votes or for any other purpose. ment was in effect that the first duty Whoever wrote the article in the "Eve- of the State and the first duty of the ning Post" in question knew that this was officials was to put down disorder and to the foulest and basest lie when he wrote put down mob violence, and that after the sentence, for he quotes the same letter such action had been taken, then it was in which I had written to Mr. Harriman the duty of the officials to investigate the as follows: "What I have to say to you corporation, and if it had done wrong to can be said to you as well after election make it pay the penalty of its wrongs and as before, but I would like to see you to provide against the wrongdoing in the some time before I write my message.' future. It is but another instance of I am quoting without the letter before the peculiar baseness, the peculiar moral obliquity, of the "Evening Post" that it should pervert the truth in so shameless a fashion. THEODORE ROOSEVELT. Cheyenne, Wyoming, August 27, 1910. [Such an article as that to which Mr. Roosevelt refers is not primarily the concern of the man assailed; it is primarily the concern of decent citizens all over the country; its harm to the individual in this case can be disregarded; but its harm to good government is just as real and, so far as it extends, just as deep as the worst act of the corruptionist.-THE EDITORS.] THE CRISIS IN THE REPUB LICAN PARTY The acute controversies in the Republican party which have made the political affairs of States like Ohio, California, Kansas, and Iowa of National as well as of local interest, have now brought the State of New York into a similar prominent position in public interest. A deep-seated antagonism between two groups of the Republican organization in New York State has developed into an open fight, which is bound either to reform or to disrupt the party. On August 19 the State Committee held a meeting at which there was chosen a Temporary Chairman for the Republican State Convention to be held in September. The Temporary Chairman is an officer of importance. He generally has large influence in has large influence in shaping the platform, and is supposed to make a speech which sounds the "keynote " of the campaign. The New York State Committee is divided between a group of men who are known as the "Old Guard" and another group who have supported the progressive legislation of Governor Hughes. The "Old Guard" is made up of men actively engaged in machine politics of the old type, and is dominated by Mr. William Barnes, Jr., of Albany, a "boss" of the school of the late Senator Platt. Mr. Lloyd Griscom, Chairman of the New York County Committee, came to Mr. Roosevelt before the State. Committee meeting, and, on behalf of the progressive wing of the party, asked him to permit his name to be presented as a nominee for Temporary Chairman. The conditions upon which Mr. Roosevelt assented have already been stated in the daily press, as well as in these columns. He said to the progressive leaders that if they really wished him to act as Temporary Chairman he would do so, but that he had some strong convictions as to what should be done, and that, while it was possible that his speech would help if the party nominated the right kind of man on the right kind of platform, he would be useless as a Chairman if the platform and the candidate did not correspond with his speech, which would urge the principles for which he is known to stand-principles which are clearly set forth. by Mr. Roosevelt on another page in an article entitled "The Progressives, Past and Present." Messrs. Sherman, Aldridge, Barnes, and Woodruff, and those who sympathize with them, decided that they did not want Mr. Roosevelt in the position of Temporary Chairman on such conditions. They accordingly chose Vice-President Sherman, and the "boss" element in the party joyously treated Mr. Roosevelt's failure of election as a blow, not only to him, but to Governor Hughes and the political reforms for which Governor Hughes has stood. Of course they had a perfect right to exercise the honest power of the majority and elect the candidate of the majority. What they did not have a right to do was to obtain their majority by trickery and deception. It soon began to be rumored that in bringing about the election of Vice-President Sherman and the defeat of Mr. Roosevelt the cheapest tricks of machine politics had been employed. At first the public was unwilling to credit these rumors. It was alleged that Mr. Sherman had himself suppressed an important telegram from President Taft, and had given some of the members of the Committee the impression that Mr. Roosevelt's defeat was desired by President Taft and his Administration. The public at first could hardly credit reports of such political chicanery on the part of a man holding one of the most distinguished positions in American political life. The "Old Guard " so persistently circulated the idea that Mr. Taft and his Administration were behind them and opposed to Mr. Roosevelt that Mr. Taft made public a letter to Mr. Griscom, in which he not only disavowed any support of the "Old Guard," but stated that a telegram had been sent to Mr. Sherman advising him to consult with Mr. Roosevelt, and that he himself had no knowledge of Mr. Sherman's candidacy until the fact of his selection had been published in the newspapers. What the political future of Mr. Sherman can possibly be, in view of Mr. Taft's very calm but very strong repudiation of him and his works in this matter, it is hard to conjecture. At this writing it is not known whether Mr. Sherman will insist on assuming the temporary chairmanship of the Convention; but Mr. Roosevelt has announced that if he goes as a delegate to the floor of the Convention, he will there make a speech vigorously opposing the principles and methods which are followed in Republican politics by "old guards," not only in New York, but in all parts of the country. Mr. Barnes has made a statement, drawn out by the letter of President Taft, but no adequate reply to it. He asserts that his position is one of defense of capital and industry from the attacks of Populistic theorists; the inference being that the real enemies both of their party and of the country are those who favor direct nominations and freedom of the party from the oligarchic rule of a few strong but self-constituted bosses. It appears to be the general opinion throughout the State that this episode has very much weakened, if it has not destroyed, the political influence of Messrs. Barnes, Aldridge, Woodruff, and Vice-President Sherman, and very much strengthened the position of Mr. Roosevelt as a leader of the political thought and action of the State. The action of Mr. Barnes and his associates in this matter, which, as they made it only too evident, they regarded as a shrewd political move that would give them control of the party in the State and eliminate Mr. Roosevelt and Governor Hughes as party leaders, turns out to have been a piece not only of bad morals but of laughably feeble politics.' The whole country will regret exceedingly that the Vice-President of the United States should be involved in so shabby a transaction. This contest in New York State between Mr. Sherman, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Aldridge, and Mr. Woodruff on the one hand, and Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Griscom, and Governor Hughes on the other, is not a local or factional fight. It is part of a contest which has now assumed National proportions. It had its beginning in an attack in the House of Representatives upon Speaker Cannon and what is now known as "Cannonism," but it is now a part of a general revolution which has for its purpose the overthrow of those men who wish, by means of a closely bound organization, to manipulate party machinery for their own political or financial profit. The term Progressive was first applied to those Representatives or Senators who were arrayed against the principle of oligarchic autocracy in National legislation; the movement has now grown until the title of Progressive may fairly be used to designate any man who is determined to see that we have in this country a Government which is really representative of a. genuine democracy; who is, to use Mr. Roosevelt's words, "against the domination of the party and the public by special interests, whether these special interests are political, business, or a compound of the two." NATIONAL CONSERVATION The second National Conservation Congress will be held in St. Paul, Minnesota, September 5-9. It will be one of the most interesting gatherings of the season, not only because both the President and the ex-President will be guests of honor, but also because it will probably exhibit wide divergencies in opinion and perhaps be the occasion of warm debates. The Outlook agrees with Mr. Roosevelt in his statement, made before the National Editorial Association at Jamestown, Virginia, three years ago, that "the conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our National life." It also agrees with his definition of Conservation as utilizing the natural resources of the Nation in a way that will be of most benefit to the Nation as a whole." Conservation is of the greatest importance to the country, because "unless we maintain an adequate material basis for our civilization, we cannot maintain the institutions in which we take so great and so just a pride." It is also of the most immediate importance because, if the Nation allows these resources to pass out of its control into private hands, it cannot recover possession without a revolution. Other blunders can be peacefully rectified. It is difficult to see how this blunder, if committed, can be rectified by any peaceful process. The gentlemen who are to meet at St. Paul, Minnesota, next week, will be engaged, therefore, in dealing with a National problem which is both of the greatest and of the most immediate importance. We venture here simply to define the problem. In so doing, it is advantageous to consider the four subject matters of Conservation and the two objects or ends of Conservation. The Nation's wealth which is to be conserved consists of four different elements requiring different treatment : Mineral constituents of the soil. Water power sites. Arid and swamp lands. Mineral constituents of the soil are taken out from the land, carried away and used. Nature will not replace them. Once gone, they are gone forever. This is true alike of coal, copper, lead, phosphates, gold, silver, and probably of oil, though we believe there are some authorities who hold that oil is even now in process of development or creation by subterranean forces. Conservation of these mineral constituents means care not to waste them in the process of mining, and care not to extract and use them any more rapidly than is required by the needs of the present generation. The Nation has no more right to waste the inheritance of its children than has an individual parent. The water power sites constitute a force of nature to be utilized in National industries, probably much more efficiently in the future than in the past, for water power economically generates electricity, and electricity can be economically transmitted many miles from the location where it is generated to the location where it can advantageously be used. Water power is not destroyed by use and cannot be wasted by use, as coal can, but neither can it be conserved by simply guarding the water power. The value of the water power depends upon the way in which the mountain heights which furnish the springs that feed the river are treated. Conservation of water power sites means scientific treatment of the great natural reservoirs on which the water power depends for its existence. Forests are a product of the soil as much as wheat or corn. Unlike water, forests can be destroyed; unlike minerals, the trees of the forest can be replaced. We can cut the forests off, carry away the lumber, and burn up the litter or leave it to rot upon the soil, and then move our sawmills to another forest and repeat the process of devastation. This is what lumbering has done in the past. Or we can treat the forests as a crop, and can cultivate the trees while we are cutting down the trees. We can do this either by scientific cutting or by scientific planting, or by a combination of the two. It is really astonishing that a Nation which prides itself upon its practical common sense has only just begun to learn the folly of forest demolition and the value of forest cultivation. Conservation of the forests means scientific forestry. The arid and swamp lands are valueless in their present condition. To make them valuable, the one requires irrigation, the other drainage. Conservation of these lands means not merely preserving a value which already exists, but creating a value which does not exist. Thus Conservation has four distinct meanings, according to the wealth to be conserved. Conservation of mines means prohibition of wastefulness in mining. Conservation of water power means preservation of the natural reservoirs. Conservation of the forests means tree culture. Conservation of arid and swamp lands means irrigation and drainage. But Conservation means not only utilizing the natural resources of the Nation, but also utilizing them "in the way that will be of most benefit to the Nation as a whole." Conservation, therefore, measured by the objects or ends to be pursued, includes two distinct elements. It means the application of scientific methods (that is, of common sense) to the treatment of our mines, our water powers, our forests, and our unproductive lands, and there is no good reason why it should give its wealth away. Because private enterprise has shown itself extraordinarily wasteful of natural resources in its haste to get rich. Because the States have shown themselves not strong enough to furnish the kind of control which is necessary for the protection of popular rights against monopoly. Because, in the nature of the case, neither the unproductive lands nor the water powers can be protected except by a power which can operate beyond State lines, in the one case to irrigate and drain, in the other case to preserve the reservoirs on which the water power depends. Because, if the forests are left subject only to State control, that control, if negligently exercised, may be destructive of the water powers in another State; and if the mines are left to State control, the experience of the past shows that conflicting mining laws of contiguous States lead to endless litigation. For these reasons The Outlook hopes that the second National Conservation Congress will see its way clear to declare emphatically for Federal ownership of our National resources and for the operation of those resources subject to Federal supervision and control. But it also means securing the benefit of these National resources for the Nation. It means keeping them under National control, and dividing the profit fairly and equitably between the owner (that is, the Nation) and the operator, be he private person or public agent, who makes them available. The National Conservation Congress has no more important question to discuss, in our judgment, than the question whether these elements of National wealth shall be turned over to private enterprise, subject to some royalty to be paid to the Nation, or shall be given over to the separate States to be used as each State thinks best for the benefit of the people within whose territory the resources exist, or shall be kept under the control of the Federal Government and subject to its supervisory regulation. This is a fair question, upon which wise and patriotic men may differ. We think we understand the view of those who hold THE USE AND ABUSE OF that the marvelous progress and prosperity of the Nation in the past has been due to private enterprise, and that we had better continue to depend upon private enterprise for the development of our National resources in the future. We can understand the view of those who hold that in times past the natural resources in every State have been left to the control of the State, and that this course, which has been pursued in the fully populated States in the East, should now, in justice, be pursued in the sparsely settled and yet to be developed States of the Far West. We understand these views. But we do not agree with them. In our judgment, the Nation should keep control of all lands now belonging to the Nation, except those which are purely and simply agricultural. It should do this: Because the lands belong to the Nation, INJUNCTIONS We shall assume in this article that Congress has, under the Constitution, authority to define, direct, and limit the exercise of both executive and judicial functions, provided it does not, under the guise of defining and directing, paralyze, and, under the guise of limiting, destroy those functions.1 We shall assume that the Congress which has created the Federal courts, except the Supreme Court, can reconstruct them or abolish them and substitute other courts in their place, and that this power to create, abolish, and reconstruct carries with it power to define and direct the exercise of the functions of such courts. The one exception is, as we have said, the Supreme Court of See the editorial in last week's Outlook entitled "The Power of the Courts." |