Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

as to menace the lives of women and children immediately in front of the speakers stand, and the President, with his usual tact and quickness of action, sprang to his feet and appealed to the men. in front of him to protect the women in good Virginia fashion. At the close of the address, through a lane in the crowd, the President walked to the Administration Building, where luncheon was served. It was noted that some of the foreign attachés who were not accustomed to American lunches did not know how to avail themselves of their opportunities and went without food. There was a review of troops on the Lee Parade immediately after the luncheon, after which the President took his stand at the door of the Administration Building and shook hands with about six hundred people. In the evening the entire fleet in the Roadstead was brilliantly illuminated. The grounds and buildings are not yet completely finished, and it will probably be several weeks before everything is in order, but the general effects are impressive, and, barring the delays which always attend the inauguration of such great enterprises, the Jamestown Exposition promises to be one of the most successful, as it certainly must be in some ways the most interesting, of the great national fairs.

The President's speech rose fully to the occasion; there is probably no man in the Nation who could, with greater insight and sympathy, describe and appraise at their true value the work of the discoverers, explorers, and settlers of the continent. After a cordial and fraternal greeting to the representatives of the foreign Powers, and especially to those of Great Britain, from whence there came to this country both the Cavalier and the Puritan type, our language, our law, our literature, and a great fund of common thought and experience, the President emphasized the great change in relations between the nations, and declared that all true patriots now earnestly wish that the nations may advance hand in hand, "united only in a generous rivalry to see which can best do its allotted work in the world." He described rapidly and picturesquely the character of the men

who settled Jamestown, bringing out the fact that, while the English colonial stock has left a deeper mark on our National life, both the environment and the presence of other stocks have differentiated the American people, almost from the beginning, from European peoples. The story of the conquest of the country and the land, of the growth of the early settlements, was briefly and vividly told. Touching on the task of achieving independence accomplished by the men of the Revolutionary period, the President said: "To Virginia was reserved the honor of producing the hero of both movements, the hero of the war and of the peace that made good the results of the war-George Washington; while the two great political tendencies of the time can be symbolized by the names of two other great Virginians-Jefferson and Marshall-from one of whom we inherit the abiding trust in the people which is the foundation store of democracy, and from the other the power to develop on behalf of the people a coherent and powerful government, a genuine and representative nationality."

The President's characterization of the second great crisis, the Civil War, ought to be posted in every school-room in the country as the view of a broad-minded and devoted patriot, who is able, as was Lincoln, to rise above the mists of misunderstanding and to grasp the essential truth out of the confusion and distortions of the passion of the hour:

Oh, my hearers, my fellow-countrymen, great indeed has been our good fortune; for as time clears away the mists that once shrouded brother from brother and made each look "as through a glass darkly" at the other, we can all feel the same pride in the valor, the devotion, the fealty toward the right as it was given to each to see the right, shown alike by the men who wore the blue and by the men who wore the gray. and prosperous though we are as a people, the proudest heritage that each of us has, no matter where he may dwell, North or South, East or West, is the immaterial heritage of feeling, the right to claim as his own all the valor and all the steadfast devotion to

Rich

duty shown by the men of both the great armies, of the soldiers whose leader was Grant and the soldiers whose leader was Lee. The men and the women of the Civil War did their duty bravely and well in the days that were dark and terrible and splendid. We, their descendants, who pay proud hom

[graphic]

age to their memories and glory in the feats of might of one side no less than of the other, need to keep steadily in mind that the homage which counts is the homage of heart and of hand, and not of the lips; the homage of deeds and not of words only. We, too, in our turn, must prove our truth by our endeavor. We must show ourselves worthy sons of the men of the mighty days by the way in which we meet the problems of our own time.

The President spoke frankly of presentday dangers, declaring that the work of this generation is social and industrial;

that it behooves us to remember that

men can never escape being governed either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. We are called upon to deal with

that we will not tolerate the abuses of property.

In closing, the President declared that the Republic shall never become a government of plutocracy, or the government fathers meant it to be: a government in of a mob; that it shall remain what the which each man stands on his worth as a man, where each can have the largest personal liberty consistent with securing the well-being of the whole, and where the effort is consistently made to secure for each man such equality of opportunity that he may have a fair chance to show

the stuff that is in him.

an industrial situation in which combina- Two Radical Remedies

tion, alike in the world of capital and the world of labor, is the chief factor. In a few passages the President summed up the spirit of his endeavor to secure rigid enforcement of law, the supremacy of the Government, the proper regulation both of capital and labor in the interests of the people, preserving at once the integrity of popular rule and the sacredness of private rights:

At the moment the greatest problem before us is how to exercise such control over the business use of vast wealth, individual, but especially corporate, as will insure its not being used against the interest of the public, while yet permitting such ample legitimate profits as will encourage individual initiative.

It is our business to put a stop to abuses and to prevent their recurrence, without showing a spirit of mere vindictiveness for what has been done in the past.

Burke combined unshakable resolution in pressing the reform, with a profound temperateness of spirit which made him, while bent on the extirpation of the evil system, refuse to cherish an unreasoning and vindictive ill will toward the men who had benefited by it. Said Burke, "If I cannot reform with equity, I will not reform at all. . . . [There is] a State to preserve as well as a State to reform."

We are unalterably determined to prevent wrongdoing in the future; we have no intention of trying to wreak such an indiscriminate vengeance for wrongs done in the past as would confound the innocent with the guilty.

Our purpose is to build up rather than to tear down. We show ourselves the truest friends of property when we make it evident

"The

If

The article on another page on New York Police" has been carefully verified by the editors of The Outlook. Its accuracy may be trusted by our readers. The evils which our contributor describes are due primarily to a thoroughly bad organization. The policemen are neither better nor worse than their fellow-citizens. They are average men. If they have more than average courage, it is because their profession develops courage. as a class they have less than average honesty, it is because the organization develops dishonesty. Radical evils call for radical remedies. The evils which our contributor describes-and in his description he exaggerates nothing and sets down naught in malice-are radical; we here suggest certain radical remedies. I. The head of the police force has a temporary tenure of office; his subor dinates have a permanent tenure. He may be turned out of office at any election and is likely to be; his subordinates cannot be discharged for even inefficiency and incompetency without legal evidence sufficient to satisfy a court of justice of their offense. The inevitable result is that the permanent force look down upon their temporary com. mander. To win his approval is no object; to suffer his disapproval is no disadvantage. Discipline under such a system is impossible.

The conditions should be reversed. The office of Police Commissioner should be non-political; its tenure should be

[ocr errors]

measurably permanent. There is as good reason for making it both nonpolitical and permanent as for so making the office of judge. The Police Commissioner should be selected for his executive abilities as the judge is selected for his judicial abilities; and, being selected, he should hold his office. for at least half a score of years. Twice that term would be better. Nor should he be removable except as a judge is removable upon charges and after trial.

On the other hand, the tenure of the policeman should not be permanent. The policeman is a private soldier. He might be enlisted as the soldier is, for a brief term. But if he were enlisted for good behavior, the question whether his behavior is good or not ought not to be left to the civil courts. It ought not to be assumed that he has a right to his office and can be deprived of it only by legal evidence of illegal conduct. The police is essentially a military force; it should be organized on military principles. The Police Commissioner should have power over the force analogous to that exercised by the Commander-inChief over an army. The absolute power of dismissal ought not to be lodged in his hands. The private policeman should have the same right to a court martial that is enjoyed by the officers in the army. But the court martial should be no more subject to review by the civil courts in the one case than in the other. A court martial is as competent to administer justice as a civil court. For the purpose of maintaining an efficient police or military organization it is far more competent. Injustice might sometimes be done to individual policemen by a court martial, as injustice is some times done to individual citizens by the civil courts. The risk would be no greater in the one case than in the other. But even if it were greater, it would be better to hazard an occasional injustice to an individual than to inflict, as now, a chronic and continuing injustice on the whole community.

Mr. William McAdoo, recently Police Commissioner, has proposed a definite plan to secure this result. He says:

I am convinced that the Legislature will not give to a single Commissioner the power

which courts martial have in the army and navy. If any change is to be made, therefore, it seems to me it would be best to have a judge something akin to a judge-advocate in the army appointed by the Appellate Di vision of the Supreme Court, who should be a lawyer of good standing and a man of the salary somewhat near to that of the Com. highest integrity, who should be given a

missioner himself. Before him all the trials should be held in all parts of the Greater New York, and before him the Third Deputy Commissioner could act as prosecutor.

Mr. McAdoo would have no appeal to the courts from this Judge-Advocate's decision except in cases where it was disapproved by the Commissioner. Whether this specific plan is adopted or not-and there are some manifest advantages in this plan the essential principle is that the discipline of the police force should not be dependent upon the judgment of the civil courts. That is fatal to all discipline. When a man enters the army, he does so knowing that his rights as a soldier are dependent upon a military tribunal. When a man enters the police force, he should understand that his rights as a policeman are dependent upon a police tribunal.

II. In a democratic community it is very difficult to enforce a law which directly affects the entire community, if the public opinion of the community is opposed to its enforcement. The excise laws, which it is the duty of the police in New York to enforce, are enacted by the public sentiment of the rural community and are opposed to the public sentiment of the municipality. To a large proportion of the citizens of New York City it appears to be no more wicked to drink beer and wine than to drink tea and coffee, and no more wicked to drink them on Sundays than on week days. The policemen are chosen from this community, share its opinions, and have no inclination to earn its ill will by a rigid enforcement of liquor laws which they do not believe in. But a lax enforcement of these laws furnishes great opportunities and therefore great temptations to cor ruption. There is but one radical remedy: it is to extend over the cities the local option law which is now confined to the rural communities and to extend over Sunday the local option principle which is now applied only to the week days.

[graphic]

The Legislature should allow the cities to vote, either as cities, or by districts specifically defined, on the two questions, first, Shall any sale of liquor be allowed? and, second, Shall it be allowed on Sundays? If New York voted to allow a Sunday sale, the privilege of illicit sale could no longer be bought from policemen; if it voted against Sunday sale, the enforcement of its decision would be far easier than is now the enforcement of a decision imposed on the city by the country districts. In either case the opportunities and the temptations to corruption would be lessened. There is sufficient local sentiment against public prostitution and public gambling to make possible the enforcement of the laws against both. What makes this now difficult is that they join their forces with those of the saloon.

Another possible remedy would be a State police, officered and directed by State authorities to enforce the laws of the State. But this would be so contrary to the traditions and habits of the people that it need not be here considered. For the present, at least, a State constabulary would be possible only as a supplement to, not as a substitute for, local police.

III. Other methods of securing an efficient and honest police organization, though less radical, are not less important. In every city, as according to the new law it is now in New York, the detective bureau should be under the autocratic authority of the Commissioner, who should have power to appoint to that service and to remove from it without giving any account of what he had done or why he had done it. In every city such secret societies as those which our contributor describes should be broken up. Belonging to such a society should be sufficient reason for instant discharge from the service. The police should be encouraged to maintain organizations for fellowship and for self-help, but they should be open, not secret, societies. Police magistrates should be secured who would count it their duty to co-operate with the police in protecting society, not to work against the police in protecting the criminal classes. In New York Mayor McClellan has made

a distinct advance in this respect by the appointment of three new police magistrates. But these and kindred reforms, where they are needed, would surely and not slowly follow the adoption of the two radical principles which we have suggested-the first, giving to the Police Commissioner a really effective power of discipline such as the New York Commissioner does not now possess; the second, giving to the citizens of the cities the same power to regulate the liquor traffic which in New York State is now by law given to the people of the rural districts.

A Proven Failure

Once more a State Legislature has displayed its incompetence for the task of electing a United States Senator. For the rest of the year, at least, Rhode Island will have to remain but half represented in the Senate. After a deadlock lasting over three months, and involving eighty-one ballots, the Legislature has adjourned without selecting a successor to Senator Wetmore.

Almost every year has been marked by one or more such deadlocks. Usually they have not been, like this, unbroken. Most of them have ended in a compromise or a stampede. Even in those cases, however, the result has been hardly less unfortunate. Candidates chosen after such long and wearisome ballotings, when every legislator, exasperated by what he regards as the obstinacy of opposing factions, is subjected to enormous pressure from party leaders, are not likely to be those that calm judgment would select. From 1891 to and including 1905 there were forty-six deadlocks. In fourteen of them there was no election. In those fifteen years about one-half of the States of the Union suffered from such protracted contests, and several States because of them were deprived of equal representation in the Senate.

These facts, together with others concerning the practical effect of intrusting the election of Senators to State Legislatures, are presented effectively in the volume by George H. Haynes, Ph.D.,

entitled "The Election of Senators," published by Henry Holt & Co. in the series known as American Public Dr. Haynes gives the arguments both for and against the present system. Although in his own opinion the gains from popular election, secured by amendment to the Constitution, would outweigh the losses, he puts the arguments against popular election as strongly as those in support of it. The history of Senatorial elections as he recounts it is full of intrigue, bargaining, and obstructionist tactics, and is even marred by scenes of violence. If the reading of the plain facts there set down tends to diminish one's respect for the United States Senate, it reduces still more one's respect for State Legislatures.

In view of this sorry record, it is not surprising to learn that since 1890 more than two-thirds of the State Legislatures, confessing as it were their own shortcomings, have signified to Congress approval of direct election of Senators by the people, and that in a vote in the House of Representatives on a Resolution proposing a Constitutional Amendment to provide for such direct election, the delegations of all but two States indorsed the proposition. In addition, in three States, California, Nevada, and Illinois, a popular referendum has been taken on the subject. The majority in favor of the change was in each instance overwhelming: in Illinois it was nearly six to one; in Nevada nearly eight to one; and in California it was over fourteen to one. As these and other like expressions of opinion have not been confined to any one section, so they have not been confined to any one year. They have been both widespread and continuous. The action, or rather the inaction, of the Rhode Island Legislature will add a new bit of evidence to that which has already created this public sentiment. It is true that the result in Rhode Island is not without its encouraging aspects; it has proved, for instance, that the supporters of the interests of the people can be quite as immovable as the sycophants of the wealthy or the henchmen of a boss. But this does not in the least obscure the fact that once again a State Legislature has

made a mess of its undertaking to act as a Senatorial electoral college.

The worst of the present method of choosing Senators, however, is not that it is inefficient; that would be only a negative fault. The worst of it is that it is positively pernicious in its effect. It has done injury to the character of the Senate, and it has done much to degrade the State Legislatures.

What effect legislative election has had upon the Senate can be illustrated easily from the State of New York. No one imagines that either Mr. Thomas C. Platt or Mr. Chauncey M. Depew is really representative of the State. Both are rich men, with corporate affiliations. Neither would now be in public office if he had to rely on the suffrage of the people of the State. They are both in the Senate simply because the New York Legislature has been amenable to the influence of small but powerful bodies of men who wished to put them there. These two Senators are extreme cases of a class of men who have succeeded in getting into the Senate. If a rich man wishes to buy a high office for himself, he looks first to the Senate. He does so because he knows that whereas a whole State may not be purchasable, a Legislature may be. The general distrust of the United States Senate is not based on vain imagination. It is the character of the Senate that has furnished material for most of the arguments against legislative election.

Upon Legislatures the ill effect is even more clear. It is to the State Legislature that are intrusted the powers of government which affect the citizen most intimately.

His life is safeguarded, his property held, even his family made legitimate, by virtue of the Legislature's action; and his taxes are levied principally in accordance with State laws. It is therefore to his interest that the Legislature should be mainly concerned with the affairs not of the Nation but of the State. Yet it is indubitable that the function of electing Federal Senators has done more than anything else to divert the mind of State legislators from the affairs of the State to the affairs of the Nation. Not only that, it has diverted it to those affairs of the Nation which are of least

« PredošláPokračovať »