a seat. It merely directed that if, for instance, a thousand passengers used the Subway between ten and ten-thirty on a given day, cars containing at least a thousand seats should be run to carry them. That was hardly an unreasonable requirement that a road which was earning eighteen per cent on its investment should go as far as that toward giving each traveler the seat to which he is en But the Interborough protested, and, in the belief of the Commission, failed to live up to the requirements of the order. A short time ago the Commission issued a new order, reducing to fifteen minutes the period within which seats and passengers must correspond. Last week the Interborough refused to obey this order and demanded a rehearing upon it. Among the grounds on which the Company refuses to obey are these: The order "deprives the Company of the right of ownership and management and protection of its property;" that it "illegally substitutes the judgment of the Commissioners for the judgment of this Company's directors;" that the law under which the Commission acts is unconstitutional. These objections of the Interborough strike at the very source of the regulation which the Public Service Commissions Law aimed to provide. The Interborough evidently wishes to be judge of its own cause; to determine for itself what service it will render the public; to decide for itself whether it will allow passengers to be seated during those hours when the rush of traffic does not physically forbid such accommodation, or will compel them to stand at its own sweet will. The city is now in the midst of a discussion over the question whether the needed subways should be built as competitors of the Interborough or whether they should be adopted as extensions of the Interborough's present monopoly. In this discussion the Interborough is offering the strongest possible argument against its own recourse is to competition through independent construction. A GERMAN HERO FUND Mr. Carnegie's endowment of peace not only takes the form of the gift of a great sum of money, the income of which is to be used to carry out such plans as the trustees think will advance the interests of peace, but he is also fostering the sense of fraternity by international gifts and by the endowment of that kind of heroism which gives inspiration and nobility to daily life. He has now founded four hero funds. Seven years ago he created such a fund in this country by the gift of the sum of five million dollars, the income of which should be used each year for the support of widows and orphans of men who have sacrificed their lives in the endeavor to save others, and for the support of men who have been incapacitated for the same reason. Canada and Newfoundland were included in the range of this gift. Three years ago he gave one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the Dunfermline Hero Fund, to be used for the same purposes in Great Britain. Two years ago he established a similar Hero Fund in France, amounting to one million dollars. He has now created a "Carnegie Foundation for Life-Savers" in Germany by the donation of one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, the annual income from which is to be used for the benefit of those who have been injured in the execution of heroic acts, or whose survivors need help. The fund is placed in the hands of the Emperor, who has appointed a commission of twelve by which it will be administered, the president of the commission being the chief of the Emperor's Civil Cabinet. Among the other members are the American Ambassador and representatives of the mining, railway, maritime, and industrial interests of Germany, and of its medical profession. In his letter to the Emperor William accompanying the gift Mr. Carnegie expressed his desire to recognize the unbroken peace which the Emperor has preserved during his reign, the value to the United States of the thirty million Germans and their descendants who have become citizens of the Republic, and his wish to emphasize the fact that 66 English spoken; American window : a understood"! this is a heroic age, and that in period of industrialism there are heroes of peace. AT OXFORD The establishment of a AMERICAN HISTORY lectureship in the University of Oxford on the History and Institutions of the United States is another step forward in the direction of international understanding, and therefore of international peace; for there is no source of war so prolific as misunderstandings based on ignorance. No movement of the day is more promising of substantial results than the interchange of professorships, of which a number have already been established; so that France, Germany, Denmark, and other countries are getting information about the real life of Americans by men who understand their subject. Heretofore they have largely gained their knowledge through sensational newspaper accounts which deal with crimes, eccentricities, and abnormal social developments. Such things exist in all countries; but no other country suffers so much from a complete system of reporting them as does the United States. The men who are to fill the Oxford lectureship are to be selected by a board which is to include the Presidents of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, and Mr. Bryce, the British Ambassador at Washington. There is every assurance, therefore, that the lecturers will be chosen for their grasp of the subject, their sound sense, and their ability to use the English language. It is interesting in this connection to recall the fact that some of the most authoritative recent writing on the civilization of different countries has come from the hands of men who are foreigners in those countries. There is no better analysis of the French spirit and social organization than Mr. Brownell's "French Traits," nor is there a more authoritative book on the civilization and institutions of this country than Mr. Bryce's "The American Commonwealth," nor has any contemporaneous study of English political organization and institutions a greater authority than Dr. Lowell's "The Government of England." The establishment of such chairs will eventually make unnecessary such a sign as that which appeared some years ago in a Venice shop described in these columns, has just announced its intended transfer from the Villa Mirafiore to the Villa Aurelia. The transfer is more interesting than is usually the case with the removals of institutions from one quarter of a city to another. The Villa Mirafiore-a singularly charming house and grounds-cost the Academy one hundred and twenty thousand dollars, but, as there is quite a rivalry among other foreign academies to obtain it, our own Academy ought, with the increase in land values, to obtain a handsome profit. The reason for the removal is found in the fact that in the will of Mrs. Clara Jessup Heyland, who died a year ago, it was found that she had left her magnificent Villa Aurelia to the American Academy as its permanent home. The villa is so called from the adjoining Aurelian walls of Rome, and also the Aurelian Road leading thence from the Eternal City to the Mediterranean. The villa is a magnificent one. The house and surrounding land crown the Janiculum Hill, and command a superb view of Rome and the surrounding country. The villa is also important from a historical point of view, as it was the headquarters of Garibaldi and the Army of Defense of the Roman Republic in 1848-9. The added accentuation of American art in Rome coincides with the improved prospects of American representation in the International Exposition of Art and History in 1911. Mr. Harrison S. Morris, of Philadelphia, our Commissioner-General to the Exposition, informs us that he is having no difficulty in securing the most representative works from American artists for the Exposition, that all are eager to be included, and to do for American art in Italy even more than was done by Americans in Paris at the International Exposition there in 1900. The large art institutions, museums, and galleries are also lending their influential assistance. Indeed, without them little could be achieved, as toward them flows the tide, by purchase or gift, of the best American examples. CALIFORNIA NATIONALISM AND In this issue of The Outlook Mr. Roosevelt begins, under the above general title, a series of articles in which he discusses the Spirit of Nationalism that has taken a new vigor and form in the political and social life of the American people since the close of the war with Spain. He will endeavor, as he did in his speeches' throughout the West last summer, to define this new National spirit and to show how it may be applied to some of the specific and concrete problems that confront us. In his brilliant life of the elder Pitt, who later became Lord Chatham, Lord Rosebery shows how Europe and England in "the shameless and naked cynicism of the eighteenth century" had lost the sense of nationalism, and how the political and military contests of the time had become merely "contests of prey." Under Pitt the nationalism of England was reborn and became in very truth a "new nationalism "-that is to say, a nationalism whose function it was to promote the common rights, not merely of the court and aristocracy, but of all the English people. In the United States at the conclusion of the Civil War began a period when government, through the "shameless cynicism" of the money-maker, became very largely an agency for the promotion of wealth. Special privileges overshadowed common rights. It promises well for this country that there is to-day a new ideal of government springing up in the minds of the citizens-a new spirit of Nationalism. In experience as an officer of government and in high ideals as a private citizen, no one is better qualified than Mr. Roosevelt to discuss the various phases of this new spirit in our National life. We are especially glad, therefore, to have the opportunity to present his articles on this subject to the readers of The Outlook.-THE EDITORS. PROGRESSIVE NATIONAL ISM; OR WHAT? In the series of articles of which this is the first, I wish, at the outset, to ask the readers of The Outlook two questions. The first question is: Are you satisfied that there is no need of bettering our present social, political, and industrial system? If, after sober thought, you feel that there is no need for betterment, if you do not feel the need of raising the condition of the men who toil and of altering the status of the huge corporations as regards the public, if you are satisfied with things as they are and feel no desire to work for a greater justice in our social system-you will not believe in the spirit and principles of Progressive Nationalism. what alternative to this movement do you suggest? In considering a principle, a policy, an ideal, it is always well, before. condemning it, to consider what is the alternative. In the discussion of these questions I propose, first, to indicate what are the principles and spirit of the Progressive movement in American politics which in previous speeches and articles I have sometimes alluded to as the "New Nationalism," a movement which in its essence is to render governmental action thoroughly efficient in Nation, State, and municipality, which is furthermore to make this governmental action absolutely responsive to the need and will of the people, and which is finally to inspire the country with the knowledge that even the wisest governmental action will avail nothing unless the average citizen is himself a man of high and fine character, who combines rugged strength with the desire to do justice to his fellow-men. In the second place, if you are not satisfied with things as they are and believe there should be improvement, but think the methods and proposals of the Progressives are wrong, if you do not believe in the principles and spirit of a broad, far-reaching, and Progressive Nationalism, which shall imply the full and efficient development of the powers of both the Federal and the State Governments, The principal speeches have since been printed in book form, under the title of "The New Nationalism." In successive articles I shall endeavor to show how those principles and that spirit would work out in application to certain specific National and international problems. Those of us who believe in Progressive Nationalism are sometimes dismissed with the statement that we are "radicals." So we are; we are radicals in such matters as eliminating special privilege and securing genuine popular rule, the genuine rule of the democracy. But we are not overmuch concerned with matters of mere terminology. We are not in the least afraid of the word " conservative," and, wherever there is any reason for caution, we are not only content but desirous to make progress slowly and in a cautious, conservative manner. Moreover, ultraradicalism may be as hostile to real progress now as it was in Lincoln's day. Lincoln was a radical compared to Buchanan and Fillmore; he was a conservative compared to John Brown and Wendell Phillips; and he was right in both positions. The men and forces whom and which he had to overcome were those behind Buchanan and Fillmore; to overcome them was vital to the Nation; and they would never have been overcome under the leadership of men like Brown and Phillips. Lincoln was to the full as conscientious as the extremists who regarded him as an opportunist and a compromiser; and he was far wiser and saner, and therefore infinitely better able to accomplish practical results on a National scale. The great movement of our day, the Progressive National movement against special privilege and in favor of an honest and efficient political and industrial democracy, is as emphatically a wise and moral movement as the movement of half a century ago in which Lincoln was the great and commanding figure. But, thank Heaven, the present movement is free from taint of sectionalism, and all good citizens, North and South, East and West, can stand shoulder to shoulder in advocating the basic principles on which the movement rests. Of course the Progressive movement has some opponents whom we can have no expectation of converting. The dishonest man of swollen riches whose wealth has been made in ways which he desires to conceal from the law, and the politician who does not really believe in the right of the people to rule and who prefers to trust to corruption and class favoritism rather than to honesty and fair dealing in politics, are both naturally against us. Moreover, many men who, according to their lights, are sincere and honest, are yet so dominated by real or fancied self-interest as likewise to be against us. The rich man who has made his riches, not by lawbreaking, but by the profits of special privileges which the law should abolish, and who denies the right of Government to regulate in the public interest the business use of corporate wealth; the man who puts property rights above human rights and denies the right of Government to interfere with his business by guaranteeing to his laborers that they shall work under safe and healthy conditions and be compensated for loss of life or limb due to the dangers of their trade-these also, and the many like them, we must expect to exert their power against the Progressive movement. There is thus one group composed of those who understand Progressive Nationalism and heartily approve it because they believe it tends toward the abolition of special privilege and of political corruption and toward the development of a genuine democracy; and another group composed of those who cordially fear and fight it because they wish to preserve special privilege and evade control. There is yet another group who are not in the movement because they misunderstand it. One of the most frequently advanced allegations about the movement, made for the purpose of discrediting it in the minds. of good men who do not know the facts, is that it stands for "over-centralization " and for the destruction of States' rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. The advocates of Progressive Nationalism will, I believe, agree with what I said on this question at Denver and Osawatomie last summer?" The State must be made efficient for the work which concerns only the people of the State, and the Nation for that which concerns all the people. There must remain no neutral ground to serve as a refuge for lawbreakers, and especially for lawbreakers of great wealth who can hire the vulpine legal cunning which will teach them how to avoid both jurisdictions. It is a misfortune when the National Legislature fails to do its duty in providing a National remedy, so that the only National activity is the purely negative activity of the judiciary in forbidding. the State to exercise power in the prem ises. I do not ask for over-centralization; but I do ask that we work in a spirit of broad and far-reaching Nationalism when we work for what concerns the people as a whole. We are all Americans. Our common interests are as broad as the continent. The National Government belongs to the whole American people, and, where the whole American people are interested, that interest can be guarded effectively only by the National Government." The advocates of a Progressive Nationalism emphatically plead for efficient State action as well as for efficient National action. All they demand is that both State and National action be in the interest of, and not against the interest of, the people. The most efficient possible devel taining that the other has none. I wish to contrast with this position of the special interests the spirit and purpose of Progressive Nationalism. Its advocates desire to secure to both State and Nation, each within its own sphere, power to give the people complete control over the various forms of corporate activity, and power to permit the people to safeguard the vital interests of all citizens, of whatever class. Again I ask the critics of Progressive Nationalism just what it is to which they object in the position of its adherents. If they do not approve of it, do they wish to leave things as they are? If not, what alternative do they propose? THEODORE ROOSEVELT. opment of State power is not only not CHINA AND THE UNITED incompatible with but is likely to accompany the most efficient possible development of National power. Wisconsin offers the best case in point. Under the leadership of Senator La Follette, Wisconsin, during the last decade, has advanced at least as far as, and probably farther than, any other State in securing both genuine popular rule and the wise use of the collective power of the people to do what cannot be done by merely individual effort the University of Wisconsin, by the way, playing a very important part in the movement. Yet this has in no way interfered with Wisconsin's hearty support of the movement to make the National power in its sphere also more efficient. The representatives and beneficiaries of the special interests desire, not unnaturally, to escape all Governmental control. What they prefer is that popular unrest should find its vent in mere debate, in unlimited discussion of an academic kind as to the sanctity of contract, full liberty of contract, and other kindred subjects. They feel the need of construing the Constitution with rigid narrowness when property rights are involved, and of carrying the "division of power" theory to such an extreme as to deprive every Governmental agency of all real power and responsibility. They prefer the status quo, for they know that the mass of conflicting judicial decision has created just what they wish, a neutral ground where State and Nation each merely exercises the power of main STATES "American Defeat in the Pacific" is perhaps rather a strong phrase to apply to the present commercial relations existing between China and the United States. Nevertheless, in employing that phrase as the title of his interesting article which appears on another page, Mr. Frederick McCormick is justified by the following reasoning: The United States now has, through its control of the Philippines, some vitally important interests at stake in the Orient; the welfare of those interests depends in a large degree on the right development of China and the relations of Japan to that development; and, finally, the social and political development of China is, and will be, influenced profoundly by its commercial and industrial development. If the United States wishes to have in this development a share which shall be helpful both to China and to itself, it must cultivate with the Chinese people commercial relations of the best kind. Mr. McCormick is right, therefore, in contending that a diminution of our commerce with China means a diminution of influence in settling political and social problems of profound importance to the whole civilized world. Before the United States can have a large and profitable trade with China four conditions must be firmly established at home: First, there must be a real desire on |