CALIFORNIA The Outlook JANUARY 7, 1911 LYMAN ABBOTT, Editor-in-Chief. HAMILTON W. MABIE, Associate Editor UNDEMOCRATIC LAW AND ORDER The New York" Times" The people could then hold him responsiannounces in one of its ble for the administration of the affairs of headlines that "Governor the State. That they now cannot do. Dix is in full control." We wish he were, The man who really appointed the heads but he is not. This is not his fault; it is of departments in the State of New York the fault of the Constitution of the State is Mr. Murphy, the Tammany chief; and of New York. The Governor of that the people have no way of holding him State has certain important but narrowly responsible for his appointments. defined powers. The Constitution does not give him, as the Constitution in a democracy should give its chief executive, "full control" of the administration of the State. In this respect the Federal Constitution is far more democratic than many of our State Constitutions. The President of the United States appoints all heads of departments. He can remove any or all of them. The people, therefore, have a right to hold him responsible for the conduct of those departments. If the country approves the conduct of the Interior Department under Secretary Ballinger, the credit goes to the account of President Taft. If it disapproves, the debit goes to the account of President Taft. But the Governor of the State of New York does not appoint the heads of departments in the State. They are elected. If Mr. Bensel's administration of the engineering work in the State is good, that is not to Governor Dix's credit. If it is unsatisfactory to Governor Dix or to the people of the State, neither the Governor nor the people have any remedy. The power of removal given to the President confers on the people through the President a quasi power of recall. State. They have no such power in the One reform greatly needed in many of our States is the adoption of the Federal principle: the election of one Executive head with power to appoint and to remove all heads of departments. Governor Dix should be" in full control." Mr. Dickinson, Secretary of War, and General Edwards, Chief of the Insular Bureau, recently returned from a trip around the world, their longest stay having been in the Philippines. Both officials have now published their impressions. The Secretary's account is in the form of a special report to the President; General Edwards's is in his annual report as Chief of the Bureau of Insular Affairs. Both accounts are primarily interesting because of the light thrown upon present-day conditions in the islands. At last it can be announced that, whenever an American quits the Philippine Civil Service, he is, as far as possible, to be succeeded by a Filipino. Such a policy could never be carried out if peaceful conditions did not obtain in the islands. Even the "head-hunting tribes "—those which have had a passion for decapitation-in the north now feel safe in their lives and property, and are devoting themselves to agriculture, enjoying meanwhile more of the comforts of life than at any previous time, while the non-Christian tribes in the south have found out that the American Government is not exploiting them, but that everything done in the way of control results to their immediate benefit. No reduction has been made in the number of United States troops in the islands, but no call upon them seems likely in the 1 2 THE OUTLOOK 7 January if you will," assuming, however, that the country was determined to place these combinations under Government regulation. He regarded the right relations between labor and capital as forming the most important element in the industrial progress of the United States and the development of its commerce with the rest of the world. It is of special interest when Mr. Morton, a railway man by industrial training, speaks of the labor question in the following terms: immediate future; so General Edwards the industrial combination, "call it Trust says; their continued presence, he thinks, may be considered valuable merely for moral effect. The Constabulary, operating from nearly a hundred and forty stations, also serves as a military force, and, as such, demonstrated its fitness with the two cases of disorder above mentioned. Besides this service, the Constabulary, as Secretary Dickinson points out, has been efficient as an auxiliary force in sanitary work, especially during epidemics. While the commissioned officers of the Constabulary are generally Americans, a number of Filipinos are also officers, and the policy is to fill vacancies by the appointment of Filipinos as rapidly as they meet the requirements. Thus, among the natives, the Constabulary is becoming increasingly respected. The men and the native noncommissioned officers are constantly conciliating the people towards the administration, are learning the English language and habits, and are thus the medium of wholesome influences upon the people. As an indication of loyalty, Mr. Dickinson relates asking a member of the Constabulary, in the formerly wild Bontoc country in northern Luzon, whether or not he would stand by our flag in the case of trouble with a foreign power. The man answered: "Do you think I would hesitate to do that? Did I not recently, in the discharge of my duty, when ordered, fire upon and kill one of my own townsmen who was defying the enforcement of the law?" CAPITAL, LABOR, AND THE PUBLIC That the influential capitalists of the country are more and more taking a broad view of their duties and responsibilities with regard to labor on the one hand and the public welfare on the other is strikingly indicated by two addresses given before the Quill Club of New York at a recent meeting, one by Mr. Paul Morton, President of the Equitable Life Insurance Company, and the other by Mr. George W. Perkins, until recently a partner of the firm of Messrs. J. P. Morgan & Co. The Quill Club is a discussion club, composed of thoughtful New Yorkers of various professions. The subject under discussion was World Business. Mr. Morton made a plea for The real object of a labor union should be the true and ultimate welfare of labor, of the employer, and of the country in which it does business. I am a great believer in organized labor, but it is a big mistake to misdirect itself by attempting to bring a good man down to the level of a poor man. Its aim should be to encourage the man who wants to work and who is efficient, and to undertake to educate the inferior man to become as good as the best and thereby increase the production of its organization as a whole. Personally, I think it should stand for and not discourage piece-work. Organized labor and organized capital should both stand for efficiency and do everything possible to create wealth. I am sure there is no sensible man who will not entirely approve of a labor organization which has efficiency as one of its chief reasons for existing. Without co-operation between labor and capital we cannot meet the competition of the world. GEORGE W. PERKINS In a remarkable address on the same occasion, which is published in full in the "Churchman " for December 31, Mr. George W. Perkins advocates combination in industry, which he prefers, however, to call cooperation in industry. Mr. Perkins traced the growth of the idea that industry is war-war between competitors, war between labor and capital, and even war between nations—and asserts, what we heartily believe to be true, that civilization has reached a stage where the injury of one group of citizens means really the injury of all the citizens. He referred to the fact that the recently organized International Steel Institute has adopted as the motto of its seal or emblem, “Right is might: Co-operation;" and added that "only a few years ago if these same men had met, it is safe to say that every one of them, if asked for a design for a seal for an International Steel Association, would have said that the wording should be, Might is right: Competition."" In pursuance of the principle of co-operation, Mr. Perkins, who is perhaps the foremost practical authority in the United States on this subject, urges that the relations between labor and capital should be cemented by genuine profit-sharing. "You cannot spend a million dollars on the education of one generation without having a million of questions raised by the next generation. As a result of the educational process that has been going on [Mr. Perkins had just referred to the great sums of money given by the captains of industry to establish schools, colleges, and libraries], one of the questions raised by the present generation is, 'What is the proper division of profits as between capital and labor?"" Profit-sharing, according to Mr. Perkins's definition, must not be confused with the payment of wages. The wage-worker desires to know and has a right to know whether the payment he receives for his service, be his wages much or little, is a "fair proportion of what is made in the business of which he is a partner." The entire address is worth reading, for it is one of the soundest expositions we have lately seen of the threefold partnership of capitalist, laborer, and consumer. A pleasant and significant incident occurred in connection with this address. At a certain point in the reading of his manuscript, at the end of a sentence which completed a statement about the phenomenal growth of the idea of honest dealing and the moral responsibility of corporations, Mr. Perkins emphasized the fact that these ideals had recently made more rapid progress; then he paused and added: "When I was dictating this paper and had reached this point, my stenographer interjected, 'And Teddy did it!' and I did not object to the interruption." This incident was greeted by the Quill Club with rounds of applause. quest of Mayor Gaynor, the Chamber of Commerce and the Merchants' Association appointed a Joint Committee to study the subway situation and advise the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. The Committee was made up of prominent and public-spirited citizens, headed by former Mayor Seth Low. Four sub-committees studied the transit problem thoroughly; and the main Committee has now embodied the findings of those bodies in a comprehensive report. The Committee expresses its unanimous hope that the city authorities will accept the offer of the Interborough, with possible modification in details, and that they will accept it promptly and put an end to a situation that has become intolerable. The main reasons advanced for preferring the Interborough offer are: The benefit of having one complete system, the shortening of the lease of the present subway by fifteen years, the assurance that the city will have an operator not only for the proposed additions but for any further extensions that the city may decide to make in the future, the assurance of an early beginning of the work, the leaving to the city of money for other needed public improvements, and the assurance of a single five-cent fare over the entire system. The Committee also considers the main argument which is advanced against the adoption of the Interborough offer, namely, that it means the adoption of the principle of monopoly in future subway operation, rather than the principle of competition. This argument is based upon the belief that competition is more likely to secure satisfactory operation for both of the two systems than regulation would be in the case of a single system. This argument the Committee does not believe to be strong enough "to prevail against the advantages which have been shown to inhere in a complete system owned by the city, upon which only a single fare is charged, upon which universal transfers will be given, and the operation of which is subject to the control of the Public Service Commission." It appears to the Committee that the argument in favor of competition is based in the public mind very largely upon temporary conditions. It is led to believe that "the quality of service given by any corporation at any given time depends more upon the personal equation than upon the presence or absence of competition." THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS In making its recommendations, the Committee quite evidently holds no brief for the present management of the Interborough System, and it does take occasion to say a word of commendation for Mr. McAdoo and the management of the Hudson Tunnels. "Does any one doubt," says the Committee, "that, if Mr. McAdoo were placed in charge of the Interborough System, the attitude of the Interborough toward the public would be radically changed? Some day even the management of the Interborough may learn that the good will of the public is worth having for every reason. When this idea really reaches home, the Interborough will strive as earnestly as Mr. McAdoo now does to please the public. A system that is overtaxed, as the Interborough is overtaxed during the rush hours, cannot be expected to give service which will not be complained of. Perhaps most of the complaints against the Interborough originate in this condition of things. But there is room, as every one knows, for a change of attitude toward the public on the part of the Interborough management, which would make its service satisfactory in many minor respects as to which now it is a subject of just criticism. Such a change of attitude might come from competition, but it may also come without it." In spite, however, of this frank recognition of the shortcomings of the management of the existing subway system, the Committee feels constrained to " deprecate the adoption of a policy of competition which would forfeit all of the advantages pertaining to the Interborough offer which have been outlined, which would involve the city in useless expense, and in return for which, in the judgment of this Committee, the city would be likely to reap disadvantage rather than advantage." The Public Service Commission, and now the Joint Committee, have advanced strong arguments for the acceptance by the city of the Interborough offer. The Outlook has already stated its conviction that the principle of competition is one that it is important to preserve in so far as is possible in the operation of rapid transit lines in large cities. The Outlook realizes, however, that this is a principle which may well be modified in its application at any specified time by other considerations and by existing conditions. The unanimous judgment of two such bodies as the Public Service Commission and the Joint Committee-the one composed of experts who have been studying the problem with the closest attention for many months; the other composed of broad-minded citizens who have given the most careful attention to the factors in the problem for a shorter length of time-should, in our opinion, have great weight with those who are neither experts nor in a position to make a careful study of the question. HANDS OFF A plan has been announced by Mr. John W. Alexander, the well-known painter and President of the National Academy of Design, and also by the governing board of the Academy, by a group of its influential members, and by others interested in the institution, to secure from New York City, as they hope, permission to erect an Academy building in Bryant Park fronting on Sixth Avenue and occupying the block from Fortieth to Forty-second Street, the land to be a gift from the city and the building to be erected from funds furnished entirely by the Academy. The opposition with which this plan has been received is the most important fact in connection with that proposition. It shows that New York has thoroughly made up its mind that it will not part with any portion of the open spaces reserved for recreation and health. These open spaces, whether they are playgrounds or parks, are altogether too small; there ought to be three times as much ground given to air and to recreation as is now set apart within the limits of Greater New York. This proposition was preceded, readers of The Outlook will remember, by a proposal to erect a building for the Academy in Central Park on the site now occupied by the Arsenal, and that plan was defeated by the vigorous protests made by the public against the surrender of any part of what might be called the common lands of the city. The property between Bryant Park and Fifth Avenue is occupied by the new Library building, a distinct addition to the architectural features of New York. If the plans suggested by the gentlemen who wish to use the Sixth Avenue frontage of the park for the Academy building are carried out, the proposed building will run flush with the curb of the sidewalk, the latter passing through an arcade, and a comparatively narrow space would be left between the new building and the Library. The Outlook protests against this use of Bryant Park on the ground that New York greatly lacks park room, and that no further encroachment on the room which it now has should be permitted. A GREAT ART BUILDING That New York greatly needs an adequate picture gallery, and that such a gallery ought to be under the direction of the Academy of Design, no one interested in art in this city seriously questions. The Academy is now compelled to hang its pictures at its exhibitions on rented walls, and those walls are not adequate either to the needs of large exhibitions or permanently to represent the art interests and resources of the metropolis. There is at present a very important collection of the work of American artists in illustration on exhibition in another city, whence it will be taken to two or three other citiesChicago and Boston among them--but it cannot be exhibited in New York because no place is open to receive it. This is a state of things little creditable to a city which, more than any other American city, is the center of art production, whatever may be said of its artistic taste. The Outlook believes enthusiastically in Mr. Alexander's energetic and earnest endeavor to solve the question of housing the Academy and making adequate provision for art exhibitions; but it does not believe that the Bryant Park site would be adequate or proper. The new building for the Academy ought to be as noble a piece of architecture as the country is capable of producing, and it ought to be so placed that it can be seen from all sides, and its dignity, beauty, and size should symbolize the purposes to which it is dedicated. If to erect such a building two blocks now covered by houses are necessary, it ought to be possible to secure from the metropolis a sufficient capital to put the Academy in possession of adequate ground. The new building ought to be a part of the higher resources of New York; under the direction of the Academy it ought to be a municipal building dedicated, in part at least, to the largest popular use. Mr. Alexander is one of the American artists who has proved his faith in the possibility of democratic art by making very important contributions to it. His mural work in the Carnegie Institute at Pittsburgh not only ranks with the best artistic work in the country, but it is thoroughly modern and local in its inspiration. Its motives were not taken from classical or Renaissance times; they were taken from Pittsburgh, and are treated with the courage and simplicity of faith which have been characteristic of great art in every age. If Mr. Alexander and his associates will elaborate a scheme great enough in its inclusion of all interests, his scheme would be equally representative of the metropolis and would appeal to the imagination of New York. It is the firm conviction of The Outlook that sufficient funds could be collected to turn such a dream into a reality. THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION When the bill providing for the incorporation of the Rockefeller Foundation, which placed in the hands of the Board of Trustees a vast sum of money, was introduced into Congress last year, exception was taken to several provisions on the ground that so great a fund, if improperly employed, or put at the disposal of some anti-social endeavor, might be used for the injury of the public; and so strong was the opposition that the bill was not passed. A number of important amendments have now been introduced for the purpose of freeing the bill of the provisions which Congress found objectionable. These amendments provide that the capital of the Foundation shall not exceed one hundred millions of dollars; this amount, however, is not intended to cover advances in the value of the property after it has been received by the |