but sorry to add that his suggestions do not go to the root of the matter. He would throw on the operating cost of the business "not unreasonable" compensation for the injuries of employees, but only in the case of specially hazardous occupations, with careful definition of what is hazardous, and with care not to throw undue burdens on the factory interests. We believe that public opinion has already gone far beyond the industrial theories which demand such half-hearted recognition of the just principle that the business should bear the risk. It may be well-to take up another half-way industrial measure proposed-to increase the present limit of $5,000 damages for death to $10,000, but the right thing would be to let the jury decide what damages should be paid. If a race-horse were killed on a railway, $30,000 or more might possibly be obtained; why limit the value of a man's life and let a jury fix the horse's value? A few non-committal lines about direct primaries lay stress on the additional expense to candidates that might result, and ask careful consideration for the bill lately recommended by a commission. Needed changes in the corrupt practices act are clearly set forth. Governor Baldwin's inaugural is original, well written, and provocative of discussion, but it is clear from it that he is not a Progressive" of the school of Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic Governor of New Jersey.

perfunctory indorsements of the party platform, others are progressive in their leaning but not thorough. Among those which are novel, and certainly interesting, are the proposal to print on the back of every ballot the oath taken when a man is made a voter—as a solemn adjuration to honest exercise of the suffrage; the proposal to regulate aviation; the recommendation that women should, as propertyowners, vote in all municipal elections; and the effort to solve the problem of the present unequal representation in the Legislature, sometimes called in Connecticut the "rotten borough system," by having the Senators elected from the State at large, as was done in old days with the body of advisers which preceded the Senate. The last suggestion is important, but would be only a partial remedy, as the lower house would still be made up on the totally irrational basis of townships rather than districts of fairly equal population; even among the Senate districts, Governor Baldwin says, one has 45,000 population, another 21,700. Thorough Constitutional revision is needed, but is not likely to be had, because the country legislators will not act against their established supremacy. Neither, we believe, is there much chance that the Governor's plan will go through. Governor Baldwin, like Governor Dix, calls for economy, and would abolish, consolidate, or reduce salaries for many offices and commissions; also like Governor Dix he would have a State purchasing agent, but only for State charities and the like, not for all supplies. Like Governor Hughes, he disapproves ratification. of the income tax proposal because he thinks the borrowing power of the State would be impaired if its bonds were taxed, as he believes they might be. The plank in the party platform for popular elec-tion of United States Senators is indorsed. The Governor mildly approves a plan for a new and better Public Utilities Commission, but would reduce the commissioners' salaries-not a good way to get able men. Far better raise the judges' salaries, which are now, Governor Baldwin complains, smaller than those of the commissioners. We are glad to record the fact that the Governor of Connecticut believes that there should be new legislation as to employers' liability,

THE PANAMA LIBEL CASE

66

The United States Supreme Court has unanimously affirmed the decision of Judge Hough, of the United States Circuit Court of New York, that since the alleged libel against the President of the United States by the New York "World" was published in other parts of New York State as well as in West Point, which is a Federal Reservation, the State courts have primary jurisdiction, and that it was not the intent of the Federal statutes to extend the jurisdiction of the United States over reservations of the United States within a State in cases where the State has primary jurisdiction. In understanding this decision the reader must bear in mind the following self-evident propositions-self-evident, but curiously ignored

by some of the daily papers: (1) This decision does not involve any construction of the United States Constitution. For aught that appears in this decision, Congress could provide that all offenses against Federal officers should be, or might be, prosecuted in the Federal courts. Whether Congress could do so or not, it has not done so. Prosecution before the Federal courts for criminal offenses committed in a reservation is not provided for in those cases in which the crime has been committed also outside the reservation and adequate means for the punishment of the crime are afforded by the State courts. (2) The Supreme Court does not decide whether the New York "World" is, or is not, guilty of publishing a criminal libel. That question was not before the Court. It simply decides that the question whether or not the "World" was guilty is to be decided by the State courts because the alleged libel was primarily published in the State. (3) The liberty of the press is not involved in the decision. The Court does not decide that the press has any liberty to publish such a preposterous and groundless story as the New York "World" published. It does not even decide that the publisher of such a story may not be prosecuted in any State in which his paper circulates. It simply decides that a Federal law which incorporated the criminal statutes of the several States into the Federal law and made them applicable to Federal reservations within such States was not intended to transfer the jurisdiction for the trial of offenses not committed primarily within the reservation from the State to the Federal courts.

The question has public interest and importance only because of the importance of the persons concerned. It decides nothing but that the former Attorney-General made a mistake in choosing the Court before which he brought the criminal proceedings.

plain. By it, peonage, as it has been practiced in Alabama, bolstered up by an Alabama law and sustained by the Alabama Supreme Court, is declared contrary to the Federal Constitution. The credit for this decision belongs largely to the public spirit and unremunerated public service of a number of patriotic men of Alabama. By patient work they have succeeded in bringing the matter through the circuitous paths of legal procedure to the highest Federal bench. The whole country should hold in honor these progressive and humane Southerners. Briefly stated, the case which called forth the opinion on the unconstitutionality of peonage is as follows: A negro, by name Alonzo Bailey, made a contract with the Riverside Company to work as a farm hand for a year at $12 a month, and received in advance pay the sum of fifteen dollars. After working for a little over a month he stopped work. Of course he did not refund the fifteen dollars. Under the Alabama law, refusal to work after such a contract is made without refunding the whole advance payment is prima facie evidence that the employee intended to defraud his employer. In order to escape conviction for fraud the employee has then to prove positively that he did not intend to act fraudulently. But the law prohibits him from testifying directly as to his own intentions. So there he is— convicted of fraud by virtue of stopping work. He is fined heavily, and in lieu of payment is put to work without remuneration. It does not matter what brought about his leaving his job-if he is poor and cannot pay a fine (and he is poor, for otherwise he would not be working under such a contract) he is thus made a pecn. The case of Alonzo Bailey was once before presented to the Supreme Court, but was sent back to the lower courts because all the requisite formalities had not been observed. It arrived again at the Supreme Court last fall; and is now decided. It is clear that peonage has now to fear the power of the Federal Government. We shall postpone further comment on the decision until the full text of Justice Hughes's opinion and Justice Holmes's dissenting opinion reaches us. Meantime we simply record it as one of the great decisions of our times and

THE GUARANTY OF BANK DEPOSITS IS CONSTITUTIONAL

The States of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska have laws which establish a system by which banks are forced to contribute to a fund which is used to guarantee bank deposits. The Supreme Court of the United States last week, by a unanimous decision, holds that such laws are not contrary to the United States Constitution nor inconsistent with its principles. The Supreme Court, it should be pointed out, makes it very clear that it does not by this decision either approve or disapprove of the efficacy or economical advantage of bank deposit guaranty laws. Time and experience must prove whether this novel form of legislation will accomplish that which its inventors hope. It is not in the least the business of the Supreme Court to express an opinion on this point, nor is it a necessary conclusion from this decision that the State Legislatures have acted wisely. It is enough that the Supreme Court should find that a Legislature has acted in good faith and for the benefit of the people of the State at large, and that the law does not controvert any direction or prohibition to be found in the Constitution. This principle is entirely in agreement with the Supreme Court's decision in the Commodities case, upon which at the time The Outlook commented as follows: "We do not understand it to be the intention of the courts to determine whether legal enactments are expedient or desirable, but simply whether they accord with the principles of the Constitutional law." The Supreme Court considered several objections brought against the bank deposit guaranty laws; but Justice Holmes, who announced the opinion of the Court, dismissed the most formidable of these objections—namely, the statement that under such a law the State took private property of one bank for the private use of another bank without compensation-by saying that, while there might be some basis for this contention, yet there were far more powerful considerations to the contrary. It was in this connection that Justice Holmes used

of great significance and of far wider application than to this particular case:

In the first place, it is established by a series of cases that an ulterior public advantage may justify a comparatively insignificant taking of private property for what, in its immediate purpose, is a private use. It would seem that there may be other cases besides the every-day one of taxation, in which the share of each party in the benefit compensation for the correlative burden that of a scheme of mutual protection is sufficient it is compelled to assume. At least, if we have a case within the reasonable exercise of the police power, as above explained, no more need be said.

In regard to the effectiveness and value of bank deposit guaranty laws, opinion seems to differ in the States in which such

laws exist. The opponents of the guaranty of deposits declare that it is impossible to judge of a law until something like a panic shall occur. They assert also that such a law involves the compulsory support of the weak bank by the strong bank, and enables the reckless bank to take risks which it ought not to be allowed to take, guaranty or no guaranty, and thus unfairly to bid for the business of the conservative bank, with ensuing disastrous competition which involves financial danger. The West has been exceedingly prosperous of late; there have been very few failures of banks; the number of cases in which the guaranty fund has been applied to cover loss has been small. The country at large will watch the experiment with interest; and if the system withstands satisfactorily the shock of a real financial depression, it is safe to say that similar laws will be enacted first in immediate contiguous States to those now having such laws, and then through the country.

a year on them. The communities chosen in each State were, so far as possible, those having many alien residents, and especially those foreigners who, distrustful of our own private savings banks, have sent their savings to the government postal savings banks in their respective home countries for deposit, even though only half as much interest is paid there as here. In the second place, the communities chosen were none of them financial centers. As examples, Rutherford, New Jersey, and Cohoes, New York, may be taken. Rutherford is a typical American town, spruce, neat, well set up, well-to-do; but the Rutherford Postal District comprises a fringe of communities populated by many foreigners-not the kind who have become accustomed to American ways, but those who are not only unaccustomed to our ways, and who send their scanty savings back home, but whose social conditions are none too good. At Cohoes the knitting and other mills have attracted in the postal district a foreign population of many thousands. The large international money orders from that district, varying from five to one thousand dollars, for deposit in foreign postal savings banks, would indicate that, as soon as the foreigners learn about a Government guaranteed savings bank in America, they will deposit their funds here. In order not to overburden the present post-offices, an additional clerk has been detailed in each district to take care of the postal savings bank business, where necessary, and as many more will be detailed as is desirable, so that ultimately the postal savings bank will become a distinct department of the post-office, its officers having nothing to do with the other activities of the office. The first few days' business has shown that the banks will appeal especially to children-for accounts may be opened by any person over ten years of age in his or her name. Newsboys in particular have availed themselves of the opportunity of depositing even so small a sum as ten cents or its multiples. They receive a card, and, for each ten cents, a yellow stamp to be affixed to the card. When the sum saved reaches a dollar, a certificate for that amount is issued; and when twenty dollars have been saved, the depositor may increase his rate of interest from two to

two and a half per cent by accepting the Government's offer of a two and a half per cent bond of the twenty-dollar denomination. Think of a child as a Government bond holder! Thus there is a double inducement to children to save their pennies.

MR. PINCHOT AND THE CUNNINGHAM CLAIMS

Should a virtual monopoly of the accessible coal lands of Alaska now belonging to the people of the United States be granted to a group of thirty-three men? This is the question that is involved in the case of the Cunningham Coal Claims. What the answer to that question is to be now depends upon President Taft. An argument against the granting of this monopoly has been drafted in a brief submitted to the President on behalf of Mr. Gifford Pinchot, former Forester of the United States. "The case against the claimants is already conclusive," says the brief. "The claims should be canceled by the President forthwith." The claims of these men are those which Mr. Ballinger, now Secretary of the Interior, approved for patent, on behalf of which he afterwards drew up and presented a brief to the then Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Garfield, which still later Mr. Ballinger unofficially declared to be, in his opinion, illegal, and which figured largely in the Ballinger-Pinchot Investigation. The people of the United States own lands in Alaska containing enormously rich deposits of coal. A large part of this coal is so situated that it will be years before it will be practicable to mine it. A large part, however, is in a region which can be profitably developed. In this region a syndicate, known as the Morgan-Guggenheim Syndicate, has secured such holdings as to enable it to control, at least to a great degree, all transportation. the value of these coal deposits was popularly recognized, a law was passed which limited every coal claim to 160 acres. This was to prevent the coal of Alaska from becoming monopolized as the coal of Pennsylvania, for instance, has been. There have been two ways of evading this law: one is for a man, or group of men, who wish to acquire a large tract of coal land to use the names of others in

When