tion. And public sentiment can defeat them again, for even a Tammany Legislature is not wholly deaf to the voice of its constituents. It is urged, with a plausibility that deceives even many citizens who are convinced of the evils of public gambling, that the Hart-Agnew laws are destroying a noble sport, and that with out horse-racing to stimulate horse-breeding the equine race is destined to degeneration and ruin. It is a sad spectacle that these high-minded lovers of good sport and good horseflesh unroll before our eyes. But there are not lacking doubt ing Thomases (of whom The Outlook confesses to being one) who question whether a sport which has not sufficient vitality to exist unless it rests upon a foundation of public gambling is really worth saving: and whether it is really worth while to "improve the breed of horses" at the expense of the breed of men. Every State in the Union, with, we believe, one or two exceptions, has acted upon the conviction that it is more important to prohibit the vice of public gambling than even to encourage the sport of horseracing. It would be a shame for New York to take a backward step. An aroused public opinion can prevent it.

CITY CHARTER

We referred last week to THE CAMBRIDGE the new charter upon which the citizens of Cambridge, Massachusetts, are to vote in November-a charter in the final draft of which the leading civic organizations of Cambridge had a part, through their representatives, and which is to be submitted to the citizens of Cambridge for approval or rejection in a general election. There are some very interesting features in this charter. The elected officers consist of five Supervisors, constituting the City Council, and five members of the School Committee, and no others. One of the Supervisors is ex-officio Mayor. The others are, respectively, Supervisors of Finance, of Health, of Public Works, and of Public Property. The City Council is both an administrative and a legislative body, having the general control of the legislative powers of the city. The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the city, having the right of vote but not of veto.

There are provisions for recall, initiative, and referendum. An interesting, and to us a novel, feature is the provision for preferential voting, which has the effect of making every election also a primary, the ballot being so prepared that each voter designates his first, second, and subsequent choices. If any candidate receives a majority—that is, more than half-of the first choices on the ballots cast, he is elected. If no candidate receives a majority of the first choices, the second choices on the ballots are added to the first, and the candidate receiving the largest number of first and second choices combined, provided such number is more than half of the first choices, is elected. If, when the second choices have been added to the first, no candidate has yet a majority, the other choices are added also, and the candidate receiving the largest number in all is elected. A sample ballot will serve to indicate the way in which this method of preferential voting is used.

We hope that the citizens of Cambridge will adopt this charter and give it a trial. The experiment will be of interest and of value to the rest of the country. In its provision constituting a small body elected by the whole city and charged with large legislative powers, and in its provisions for initiative, referendum, and recall, it appears to be well considered, and also in the line both of the modern movement and, in some respects, the line indicated as wise by the experience of English municipalities. And we should like to see the preferential method of voting given a fair trial.

The disfigurement of ADVERTISING SIGNS the scenery along our ON THE HIGHWAYS highways by advertising signs and posters is one of those nuisances which has become so commonplace that many of us are probably in danger of forgetting that it is a nuisance. But probably all we need is an object-lesson of a stretch of roadside free from boisterous encomiums of Pickax Plug Tobacco, Saccharine Feeds, or Dr. Phool's Potent Potion for Paralysis, and adjurations to hasten to the Dry Goods Emporium, Jenks the Jeweler, or Fixit the Painless Dentist, to be convinced that we prefer nature unadorned. In New York State there seems a possibility that such an objectlesson, partial at least, will be offered to the travelers of the State's highways. The Legislature, which is now in recess, passed a law forbidding the painting or affixing of any advertisement to any stone, tree, fence, stump, pole, mile-board, milestone, danger-sign, guide-sign, guide-post, billboard, building, or other structure within the limits of a public highway; or the painting or affixing of any advertisement in any similar place on private property without the consent of the owner. In addition the law permits any one to destroy any advertisement posted upon a public highway in violation of the above prohibition. Of course it will not be possible to prevent the erection of signboards upon private property if the owner is willing; but if the offensive signs can be kept off the public highway, an excellent beginning will be made. A campaign of education upon the owners of private property, most of whom have probably

never thought very much about the matter, may accomplish a great deal more. The automobilists of New York State have determined to help on the good work. The Committee on Good Roads of the Automobile Club of America has inaugurated a campaign for the destruction of unlawful signs along the highways, and for the encouragement of private property owners to refuse their consent to the disfigurement of their premises. Many of the Motor Clubs in the State, and hundreds of individual owners of cars, have responded to the appeal of the Committee, and agreed to do their part in knocking down signs and in painting out advertising inscriptions on fences and elsewhere. September first, when the new law went into effect, was the day set for the beginning of active operations. As we go to press reports from the field of war have not come in, but if the automobilists of New York can make a success of their campaign they will deserve well of their fellow-citizens. From the point of view of the man in the road, or behind a horse, the automobile is not an unmixed blessing. Any compensation in the way of undisfigured landscape which the automobilist can offer to his less opulent or more leisurely companions of the road will be he rtily appreciated.

THE LAW OF

THE AIR

Two items in one morning's paper illustrate the fact that the traffic of the air is introducing new legal responsibilities and problems. It had already been pointed out that aeroplanes may, in passing National boundaries, make it hard to enforce customs laws strictly; that aviators should be examined as to skill and made to take out licenses; and that the amateur wireless telegraphers should be restrained from interfering with important messages. Now comes a decision from a California judge as to the appropriation by one person of a wireless message intended for another. It seems that a Los Angeles newspaper printed a wireless message not in the least intended for publication, but “caught from the air" by boy amateurs and apparently sold to the paper. Its owner was indicted and his prosecution attempted under a law enacted before wireless telegraphy came into use. The judge held

that there is no law that makes the interception of an aerogram a crime. If a man has apparatus, he may take from the air any message that passes. Only employees of the company transmitting such messages may be prosecuted for divulging them. If the law is the same in other States, there is need for new legislation to protect the privacy of communications. The other item describes a suit for damages brought against the famous Wright brothers by a woman in Wisconsin who was grievously injured at a State fair by being struck by a falling Wright biplane. Whether the managers of the fair, the operator of the biplane, or the manufacturers thereof are responsible is a question that might raise some nice points.

In his opening adSTORED-UP ENERGY dress last week at the eighty-first annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Sir William Ramsay, President of the Association, talked in the most interesting way, among other matters, of the actual facts about possible sources of energy and the world's resources in the way of existing supply. As regards radium, which has tremendous energy in small space, and yet not in a form practically to be utilized, Sir William declared that if the stored-up energy in a ton of radium could be utilized in a space of thirty years instead of the inevitable period of 1,700 years, it would propel a 15,000-ton ship with a force of 15,000 horse-power at the rate of fifteen knots during the entire thirty years. The prospect, however, is dimmed by the apparent fact that the production of radium never exceeds half an ounce a year. Turning to the more directly practical subject of energy from coal, Sir William declared that if the rapid increase in the output of coal mined in the British Isles continued, the supply would be exhausted in a hundred and seventy-five years-a very brief space in a nation's life. He urged that the present reckless waste should be discontinued, and that every possible means of economizing should be adopted. Specific suggestions for economy were the use of turbines, gas engines, creation of power at the pit mouth and

its distribution electrically, the abandonment of wasteful domestic fires in open hearths and the substitution of central heating plants. He even went so far as to recommend legislation to control the expenditure of the nation's fuel supply. Of course the world's supply of coal is enormously larger than that of Great Britain, and Sir William was thinking chiefly of the national commercial danger and loss to Great Britain if in the future it has to obtain its coal supply from other lands. Looking at the matter as a worldproblem, it nevertheless remains true that, although new coal supplies have been discovered and doubtless will be brought to the market as they are needed, yet the need of economical treatment of the supplies is real, and should be taken into serious account.

pamphlet issued by the Department of Agriculture about the pest of mosquitoes, a pamphlet full of information, suggestion, and practical advice. Its circulation has been followed by a discussion in the newspapers as to whether the Government should not undertake the work of destroying the mosquito. That it should at least co-operate with State and local authorities, through the Department, as has been done in the case of the bollweevil, is beyond question. Since the world learned that yellow fever and malaria are spread only by certain kinds of mosquitoes, under certain conditions, the fight has become one not merely to suppress a nuisance but to protect health and life. What can be done is shown by the history of New Orleans since its yellow fever epidemic of 1905, as set forth in a statement furnished to The Outlook by Dr. O'Reilly, the Health Officer of New Orleans. There has been a campaign of inspection during ten months of the year; seventy-eight inspectors are employed, and they make, daily, twelve hundred inspections of premises; and, as a result, the number of violations of the ordinances has been reduced from 3,013 to 639 The fight has been primarily against the stegomyia mosquito, and that dangerous creature has become almost unknown,

while extensive draining in the swamps about the city has surprisingly reduced the anophele or swamp mosquito. Just what the scientists predicted has followed : yellow fever has not reappeared, while malaria has been reduced in a really extraordinary degree, and most of the cases come from the outlying country rather than from the city. It is gratifying to record the vigorous steps taken by a city once peculiarly infested by disease of mosquito origin to cleanse itself from the evil, and thus furnish an example to places where stagnant pools, ill-drained spots, and blocked-up gutters are still allowed to threaten health.

THE GENERAL ARBITRA-
TION TREATY

HOW WILL IT WORK?

The Outlook has advised the peace societies, or some one of them, to issue a pamphlet containing the majority and minority reports of the United States Senate on the General Arbitration Treaty, with the ablest arguments they can obtain in support of that treaty. In this spirit we present to our readers the arguments for and against the treaty. Mr. Roosevelt, who disapproves this treaty, in an editorial on another page states the grounds of his disapproval. The Outlook, which approves the treaty, will, in three editorials, of which this is the first, state the grounds of its approval. We shall thus do what we can to promote that general discussion which we believe to be desirable. For if this treaty is adopted by the Senate without public discussion and popular understanding of its provisions, it will be wholly ineffectual. But if the America people understand its provisions, if they consider carefully the <objections to it, if, after such consideration,

they deliberately adopt it and make it their own, it will stand the test if an hour of trial should come. The way to secure the observance of this treaty in the future is by a full, free, and thorough discussion of its provisions now.

In our discussion we shall confine ourselves mainly to the general principles involved in this treaty. It is only upon such general principles that masses of men can pronounce a wise decision. Details

of method in carrying out the principles decided must, of necessity, be left to a small body of experts. President Taft, Senator Root, and Secretary Knox are experts on questions of international law. If the country approves the principles involved in the General Arbitration Treaty. it may safely leave to these experts the formulation of those principles in an international instrument.

In June, 1908, during the administration of President Roosevelt, a General Arbitration Treaty was negotiated between the United States and Great Britain which is now binding upon both nations. This treaty provides (1) for a general arbitration of differences of a legal nature; (2) it excepts such as affect the vital interest, the independence, or the honor of the two contracting states or the interests of third parties; and (3) it leaves it to special agreement, to be made on the part of the United States by the President, with the advice of the Senate, to define clearly the matter in dispute, and so to determine whether it comes within the excepted cases not to be arbitrated.

The treaty just now negotiated by Presiident Taft also provides for (1) arbitration of all differences between the two contracting parties; (2) it excepts such as are not susceptible of decision by the application of the principles of law or equity; and (3) in cases in which the parties disagree as to whether or not the difference is subject to arbitration under the treaty, it provides for the submission of that question to a Joint High Commission for determination. This Joint High Commission is to consist of three nationals" from each nation, and at least two of the three Commissioners from each nation must assent to the reference, or the case is not referred.1

Thus it will be seen that each of these treaties recognizes three fundamental principles: first, that, in the present stage of civilization, most questions arising between civilized nations can be settled by reference to a third disinterested party; second, that questions may arise which cannot be so referred; third, that each

1 It is possible for the United States to consent to the appointment of foreigners on the Joint High Commission, but it is not conceivable that America would consent that foreigners should constitute America's representatives on a Joint High Commission to determine whether America would refer an American question to the Hague Tribunal.

nation reserves the right to decide, respecting any particular controversy, whether it is thus referable to a court. The difference between the two treaties is twofold. First, the treaty of 1908 defines the exceptions as consisting in differences which affect the vital interest, the independence, or the honor of the two contracting parties, or the interests of third parties; while the proposed treaty of 1911 defines the exceptions as those which are not susceptible of decision by the application of the principles of law or equity. Second, the treaty of 1908 leaves the President of the United States, with the advice of the Senate, to determine concerning any particular controversy whether it comes within the exceptions noted; the proposed treaty of 1911 leaves that to be determined by a commission, three members of which are appointed by the President, with the advice of the Senate, two of whom must agree to refer the controversy in question or it is not to be referred.1

It does not appear to The Outlook that the treaty of 1911 marks any great advance over the treaty of 1908. The differences between the two do not seem to us of any vital importance. All the exceptions covered in the treaty of 1908 are covered by the general exception in the treaty of 1911. The power reserved to the United States to pass directly on the question whether any controversy shall be referred or not is reserved indirectly to the United States by the provision in the treaty of 1911. The main value of the treaty of 1911 is that it reaffirms and re-emphasizes the desire of the United States, and of any nations which shall enter into such a treaty with the United States, to settle by judicial proceedings before an international court all questions which can be consistently and honorably so settled. To reaffirm and re-emphasize this position seems to The Outlook a real advantage. It marks one further step toward the substitution of the appeal to reason for the appeal to force.

There may be some question whether the Joint High Commission, provided for in the treaty of 1911, requires for its appointment the approval of the Senate. It seems to us that such approval is clearly required. But if there is any real doubt upon that subject, it should be dissipated by a few words of amendment, which could be easily made, and to which, it may be assumed, Great Britain would interpose no objection.

There are three questions respecting this treaty for the American people to consider, and we take these questions up in three successive articles :

1. How will the treaty work?

2. Has the Senate power, under the Constitution, to make such a treaty ? 3. Is it desirable?

The report of the majority of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, presented by Mr. Lodge, declares not only that the Senate has no power to make such a treaty, but also that the treaty would work badly; that it would provoke war rather than promote peace. The report says:

immigrants were challenged, the question If our right to exclude certain classes of could be forced before a joint commission: and if that commission decided that the question was arbitrable the Senate would have no power to reject the special agreement for the arbitration of that subject on the ground that it was not a question for arbitration within the contemplation of Article I. In the same way our territorial integrity, the rights of each State, and of the United States to their territory might be forced before a joint commission. . . . Today no nation on earth would think of raising these questions with the United States, and the same is true of other questions which would readily occur to everybody. But if we accept this treaty with the third clause of Article III included, we invite other nations to raise these very ques

tions and to endeavor to force them before an arbitral tribunal. Such an invitation

would be a breeder of war and not of peace, and would rouse a series of disputes, now happily and entirely at rest, into malign and dangerous activity.

The Outlook does not share these apprehensions of the majority of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. We agree with the implied position of that Committee that any general arbitration treaty which America makes with Great Britain should be so framed that a similar treaty could be proffered to other civilized powers. We are also inclined to agree with the Senate Committee that in such a treaty there may in some future crisis be possible peril to American interests— a similar peril, as President Taft has well pointed out, to that to which the interests of any individual are subjected when they are submitted to the incertitude of a lawsuit. But we see small reason to think that this treaty would be a breeder