to its logical conclusion the movement begun in the last Congress by the Insurgent Republicans for the curtailment of the power of the Speaker. The duty of appointing the committees of the House was taken from the Speaker and vested in the Committee on Ways and Means. The effect of this action was shown in the increased importance of the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee as party leader at the expense of the Speaker. Throughout the session the Democratic majority acted as a unit, in hearty accord with the spirit and desires of its leaders; and until the very close of the session the leadership was wise and politic. The Democrats realized that their victory at the last election had been gained primarily upon the revision of the tariff, and that the revision of the tariff was their first task. To this end, the Ways and Means Committee set to work immediately upon the wool schedule, and in due course a drastic revision of that schedule was put through the House. In the Senate the cuts in the schedule were made considerably less severe, and in conference a bill containing rates which were a compromise between the figures of the House and the Senate was finally agreed to. The bill was vetoed by President Taft, on the ground that no proper and safe revision of any schedule of the tariff could be made until a report had been received from the newly constituted Tariff Board. The Democrats next passed what was known as the Farmers' Free List Bill, which removed the tariff entirely from a miscellaneous list of articles-ranging from agricultural implements to boots and shoes, from lumber to salt-of extensive use by farmers. This was intended as an offset to reciprocity, which was deemed to be disadvantageous to the farming interests. The next schedule attacked was the cotton schedule, and a bill making sharp cuts in the rates of that schedule was promptly enacted. The Wool and Free List Bills were passed in the Senate by a coalition between the Democrats and the Progressive Republicans; but on the Cotton Bill the Progressive Senators, in apparently attempting to enforce the adoption of a cotton bill of their own, suddenly found themselves outside the breastworks when, through the absence or abstention from voting of a number of Regular Republicans, the Democrats were enabled to pass the House bill unassisted. Before the Cotton Bill passed the Senate, however, amendments were added to it revising the iron and steel schedule and the chemical schedule. The lack of skill shown by the Democrats in drafting the Free List Bill, and, more particularly, their action in accepting in the House these amendments to the Cotton Bill, went far to destroy the reputation for steadiness and reasonableness which they had gained in the earlier part of the session. President Taft, as was expected, vetoed both the Free List and the Cotton Bills. His veto of the Free List Bill was based partly upon the same reasons which had controlled him in the case of the Wool Bill, and partly upon the fact that, as he showed, the bill was so carelessly drawn that it would inevitably lead to the greatest uncertainty as to what articles are or are not covered by its provisions. veto of the Cotton Bill was based, first, upon the same grounds as in the case of the Wool Bill; secondly, upon the fact that the bill was avowedly a tariff for revenue only measure, while he is committed to a policy of moderate protection; and, thirdly, because of the indefensible character of the steel and chemical schedule amendments. THE FOLLY OF THE DEMOCRATS His The action of the Democrats in both the House and the Senate upon the Cotton Bill amendments was disgraceful. The steel and chemical amendments were adopted in the Senate without having been referred to any committee, without any debate, and without any one, either within or without the Senate-least of all the Senator who introduced each one— knowing what they really meant and what their results would be. In the House the amendments were referred to no committee, debate upon the entire bill was limited, by as fine a gag rule as Speaker Cannon ever invented, to four hours, and the bill was jammed through by the best steamroller tactics. The spectacle would be comic if it were not disturbing. President Taft, in his veto message, and Congress man Lenroot, a leader among the Progressives in the House, have both riddled the provisions in relation to the chemical schedule. They have shown that they are so carelessly drawn that not only do they not accomplish what they propose to do, reduce the rates of duty, but in some cases they do the exact opposite-they raise them. If the Democrats in the House passed the Cotton Bill with its amendments in this shape only because they knew the President would never let it become law, they show that they are not fit to carry the responsibility of the power of a majority. If they propose to continue to revise the tariff in this slapdash way, they show that the country can only hope for disaster from their tinkering. So long as they were acting in good faith, as they seemed to be on reciprocity and the wool schedule, we might disagree with them but we could not but respect them. Now they show themselves worthy of neither confidence nor respect. week we gave expression to the question which is in many minds as to President Taft's wisdom in vetoing the Wool Bill. As to his wisdom in vetoing the Cotton Bill there is no question whatever. And the action of the Democrats in relation to that bill and its ridiculous amendments adds great strength to the President's whole position, that tariff revision should wait until the Tariff Board can report. Last The issue respecting the General Arbitration Treaties with Great Britain and France is put very clearly before the country by the majority and minority reports of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Dismissing details that are not important for our present consideration, the treaty may be said to consist of two parts: the first provides that all questions that are justiciable (that is, of a kind that can be determined by a court of justice) shall be referred to the Hague Tribunal, unless they can be settled out of court by diplomacy; the second, that when any question arises and either of the parties to the treaty thinks it not justiciable, the question whether it is so or not shall be referred to a Joint High Commis sion of six, three of whom shall be nationals of the one nation, three of the other; and that the decision of this Joint High Commission, if agreed to by five members, shall be conclusive for the two countries. To this treaty the majority of the Senate Committee makes two objections: First, that it is not Constitutional. The question whether any particular controversy is justiciable is to be determined by a Joint High Commission, not by the Senate. "The Committee believes that it would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States to confer upon an outside commission powers which, under the Constitution, devolve upon the Senate. It seems to the Committee that the Senate has no more right to delegate its share of the treaty-making power than Congress has to delegate the legislative power." Secondly, it objects to the treaty on the ground that it is not practicable and will not work well. It thinks that, under this treaty, certain issues might be raised by foreign nations which at present no foreign nation would think of raising. "If we accept this treaty with the third clause of Article III included [the clause which provides that the Joint High Commission shall determine whether doubtful issues are justiciable or not], we invite other nations to raise these very questions and 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." This report of the majority of the Committee is presented by Senator Lodge. 1907, and which was followed by a marked change in the movement of immigration. The volume of immigration for the calendar year up to August 1 was approximately thirty per cent below that of the corresponding period last year, while the eastward movement was one-third greater. For the seven months the east-bound thirdclass travel averaged one-half that of the west-bound, and in July the movement in the two directions practically balanced. With the exception of 1908, no year of which there is a record of the easterly flow shows so large a number of passengers in the immigrant quarters of the steamships bound for Europe in proportion to the number going in the other direction. In November and December of 1907, and through the year 1908, following the latest financial depression, the change in the direction of third-class travel and of immigration was so extreme that it was then realized for the first time that the United States had tapped a labor supply which responded quickly to changed conditions and which would relieve the market of a considerable proportion of the temporary surplus automatically when It there was a reduction in its requirements. It is now recognized by students of American immigration that the ebb and flow register in a degree the condition of the labor market in the United States. It is probable that the present marked change in the direction of the current is to be accepted as an indication of an industrial condition which has not been observed by the general public owing to the fact that there has been no violent financial disturbance to draw attention to it. This may be credited to the more conservative attitude of capital since 1907 and a more centralized control of manufacturing. that the President and Senate have said shall be arbitrated." One member of the minority, Senator Burton, thinks the dangers which the majority of the Committee foresee have no existence. "The Treaty provides ample safeguards against any such possibility." With that opinion The Outlook agrees. But it also agrees with Senator Root and Senator Cullom in the opinion that, since those dangers are apprehended, it is well to guard, not only against the danger, but also against the apprehension. This Senators Root and Cullom propose to do by inserting in the formal ratification of the treaty a resolution to the following effect: "The Senate advises and consents to the ratifification of the said treaty, with the understanding, to be made a part of such ratification, that the treaty does not authorize the submission to arbitration of any question which depends upon or involves the maintenance of the traditional attitude of the United States concerning American questions or other purely governmental policies." The Outlook repeats what it said last week-that it is glad the question of the ratification of the Arbitration Treaty is going over until next December. hopes that the question at issue between these two reports may be put before the American public, that both sides may find strong and able defenders, and that the American public may consider carefully the question at issue, in order that the treaty, if it is ratified (as we hope it will be), may be the deliberate judgment of the Nation, not the sudden or snap judgment of a small body, however able and representative. The Outlook expects in successive issues to take this question up and present the reasons why it believes that the treaty, though needing amendment, is both Constitutional and desirable. Mr. Roosevelt's views of the treaty will also be presented in an early issue. races of northwestern Europe which continues to show an increase in volume. Despite the fact that this is an off year for immigration,the inflow of Dutch and Flemish promises to exceed that of any previous year. The movement is one of marked economic interest, for its components in a large proportion are families of the agricultural class who are being crowded out of Holland. The Hollander is emigrating, in the words of Dr. Frederick van Eeden, "because the soil in the Netherlands is either very high in price or barren, so that it can only be used for agricultural purposes by intensive culture and a big outlay of capital. The son of a gardener in Holland who has a few thousands for his share cannot start a farm in Holland. He must rent the land, and he can never become well off. For that reason he prefers to go to America, where he can start with a much smaller sum." Nearly one-half of the males over fourteen years of age who enter under the heading "Dutch and Flemish" are farmers or farm laborers. They bring their families and their clergymen with them. They also bring capital with which to start anew in this country. They occasionally move in small colonies led by their pastors, indicating a long and careful preparation for the transplantation from one soil to another. Some time ago, such a colony arrived at Ellis Island with its spiritual leader at its head, part coming in the second class and the remainder'in the third class. The latter had difficulty in passing the inspectors, owing to a surprising lack of money. The clergyman, who wore excellent clothing and a fur cap, was in New York arranging for the railway transportation to the West. A messenger informed him of the predicament of these members of his flock, and he hurried back to the island, where he displayed more than a thousand dollars which had been intrusted to him for safe-keeping by his followers. They were admitted immediately. The Dutch and Flemish are settling chiefly in Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts, and are going in increasing numbers to California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Washington. The proportion of those returning to Europe is approximately ten per cent, as compared with an average of thirty per cent for all immigration. THE PANAMA RAILROAD AND ALASKA A SUGGESTION In Alaska we have a great problem be fore us for solution; in Panama we have two-thirds behind us a great problem well solved. If in the task to come we can take counsel and even material assistance from the task so nearly completed, we should not hesitate to do so. When Baldwin and Totten and Aspinwall built their pioneer railway across the Isthmus to the city of Panama, they laid the rails five feet apart, instead of the now universal four feet eight and three-quarters inches. Since that time, sixty years ago, all other American roads of any importance have become standardized, but for the Panama Railroad every piece of rolling stock must still be specially built. The de Lesseps Company, failing to realize this, shipped a quantity of standard-gauge equipment to the Isthmus, where it is now rusting away in a swamp. Much fun has been poked by American writers at this shortsightedness of the French; but within a very short time we shall be face to face with the danger of even costlier short-sightedness on our own part. Partly because our engineers were glad to use many of the excellent Belgian locomotives later designed for local use and left by the French, and partly because the extra inches would enable us to build steam-shovels and flat-cars of extraordinary size, we kept the old fivefoot gauge. To-day the United States Government has on the Isthmus nearly one thousand miles of well-ballasted roadbed, over two hundred powerful locomotives, thousands of freight and dump cars, and a splendid equipment of cranes, piledrivers, steam-shovels, machine-shops, and every other requisite for the construction and maintenance of a first-class railway of five-foot gauge. Those extra inches have indeed enabled us to move the dirt much faster, but what shall we do when the last dipperful has been loaded on the last flat-car, a little more than two years from now? The Panama Railroad will then shrink to the importance of a suburban trolley line, and though some of its equipment may be used on the proposed Panama-David Railroad, most of it C |