more and more dangerous to the plans of designing politicians. Not that such a movement would in the long run be detrimental to the cause of higher public standards, for experience teaches that efforts to suppress publicity and public-spirited efforts, even when unwisely directed, fail of their end. The St. Joseph (Missouri) Press very aptly describes the situation as it exists in that State when it declares that Missouri "now exacts more of the independent voters and of those who insist on decency in politics than it does of the parties who alternate in running things." Why Governor Folk, who has generally so excellent a record, should sign a bill of this character is at present inexplicable, although his apologists maintain that he has decided to sacrifice the Kansas City Civic League in order to secure the passage of some special measures that he has advocated in the extra session of the Missouri Legislature, the advocates of the Anti-Civic League Bill having threatened all the bills of members who might oppose their bill, and it is understood that they carried their threats to the Governor. His making a law of a measure intended to curtail the usefulness of an organization the principal members of which, regardless of party, are Folk men, is perhaps the price he has had to pay to insure the success of other and excellent legislative

measures.

These

measures

Missouri Legislation Permanent Results of illustration of the give an admirable Reform permanent results effected by what has sometimes been called the "reform wave " of recent years. Governor Folk was carried into office two years ago by an outburst of moral indignation against the old corrupt machine. The Legislature elected at that time reflected the popular sentiA stringent law against racetrack gambling was enacted, a maximum freight rate bill adopted, and several other reform measures passed. The Senate, however, half of whose members held over from the old régime, blocked much salutary legislation. The reactionary element was largely got rid of in last

ment.

year's election, and under the Governor's leadership a remarkable series of progressive measures became laws. The race-track gamblers had prepared to evade the statute by telephoning the bets out of the State. The Legislature blocked this subterfuge. It enacted a general State primary law; a law to make professional lobbying a felony except on registration and publicity; a law reducing passenger fares to two cents a mile; a law making the operation of bucketshops a felony; a stringent child labor law; a law to prevent brewers and distillers from owning saloons; and a law to permit municipalities to regulate the charges of public service corporations. Two important constitutional amendments were submitted-one to separate the sources of State and local revenue, with a view to eliminating the antiquated personal property tax for State purposes; the other to provide for the initiative and referendum. Exasperated by the refusal of the United States Senate to submit a Constitutional amendment to provide for the popular election of Senators, the Legislature adopted a resolution calling for the convocation of a Constitutional Convention.

As the regular session of the Legislature proved too short for the legislative programme outlined in his message, Governor Folk called a special session to complete the work. It was at this special session that the act for the regulation of rates of public service corporations was passed. All things considered, this was probably the most important act of the session, and it was most strenuously resisted by the lobby. That the public service corporations were unable to compass its defeat is testimony to the rapid advance of really representative government in Missouri. Before the popular uprising which began with Mr. Folk's attack on the St. Louis boodlers while he was Circuit Attorney for that city, such legislation would have been out of the question. Throughout the sessions the once powerful brewery interests were on the defensive. A bill to grant ward option to cities passed the House, and would have passed the Senate had not an error in it been discovered too late in the session to allow remedying. Thus the moral impetus

that Missouri-in common with much of the rest of the country-has received in recent years has left a lasting impression on the institutions of the State. Even should the people again become absorbed in business so that a political let-down should come, the old conditions can never be restored.

The Recount

Bill

We gave last week some reasons why we regard the bill providing for a recount of the votes cast in the Mayoralty election in New York a year ago last fall as unreasonable and unjust. A hearing on this bill was held last week by Acting Mayor McGowan, in the absence of Mayor McClellan. Mr. McGowan's veto of the bill is reinforced by a paper addressed to the New York Legislature by Mayor McClellan, which is characterized by that sort of clearness and vigor that is born of a healthy moral indignation. This protest emphasizes one feature of the bill which deserves more emphasis than we laid upon it last week. To secure a recount the applicant must, in twenty days after the passage of the bill, call for such recount, designate the districts in which he wishes the recount to be had, and give bonds to pay the expense if the result of the election is unchanged. In this provision there is a triple injustice. It is primarily unjust because it treats the office as a personal perquisite, not as a public trust, and the parties principally interested as Mr. McClellan and Mr. Hearst, not as the people of the city of New York. If the previous count was so inadequate that public interests demand a recount, it should be paid for out of the public treasury. To offer a recount to a candidate who is rich enough to pay for it and refuse it to one who cannot afford to hazard its expense is un-American and unjust. It does not provide for a complete recount, nor for a recount in those districts in which there is some evidence of fraud or irregularity, but in those districts and those alone which one of the candidates may choose for that purpose. Thus, Mr. Hearst may select the districts in which Mr. McClellan has a majority of three or four to one, and in which,

therefore, presumptively, the irregularities in the McClellan ballots would be in the same proportion. But Mr. McClellan cannot demand a corresponding recount in the Hearst districts without giving a bond to pay the expenses if the result of the election is unchanged. That is, Mr. McClellan must give a bond to pay for the cost of any recanvass he calls for in order to make the entire recanvass adequate, if the result of the recanvass shows that he was legally elected. Finally, the bill, as we have heretofore pointed out, enables Mr. Hearst, without offering any evidence whatever of fraud, to involve his successful opponent in a process of litigation which can be made absolutely ruinous to any one but a multi-millionaire :

If the contestant should demand a recanvass of the vote in one thousand election districts, each district is a separate proceeding, and all can be carried on simultaneously. The cost of being represented by counsel at each of these proceedings is an item which any other than a very rich man must seriously consider when aspiring for public office if legislation of this sort is to prevail. Is it a simple act of justice to drive an official out of office at the instance of a man whose financial resources are unlimited?

To this question there can be but one answer. In our judgment, this recount bill is fundamentally and incurably bad. Certainly in its present form it is inherently unjust. When the bill goes back to the Legislature, no legislator should vote for it without first giving Mr. McClellan's protest a careful and unprejudiced consideration; and Governor Hughes, who has called for a recount bill-not necessarily for this one-" as a simple act of justice," will owe it to himself and to his friends, if this bill comes before him, to return it to the Legislature with his objections, or to explain to his supporters how such a measure can be reconciled with the simplest and most fundamental principles of justice and fair dealing.

Some official correA Great spondence between Railway Merger Governor Guild, of Massachusetts, and President Mellen, of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Company, has made public

the fact that by the consolidation or merger of that railway and the Boston and Maine Railroad, railway transportation in the six New England States Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island-will hereafter be controlled by one great corporation. President Mellen, in urging upon the State of Massachusetts, through its Governor, the union of these two railways, says: "No stock

a

has been or will be issued in connection with this purchase against which charge of stock-watering or inflation can lie. For every share of New Haven stock issued will represent a share of Boston and Maine retired, and no capital will be outstanding on which dividends must be paid more than at the present time." President Mellen advises the merger on the ground that the interests of New England can best be protected against outside selfish control by consolidating in one efficient management all the New England railway business. A single management also, he points out, can offer the travelers in the New England States facilities of through trains and intimate connections which cannot be maintained by different corporations, however harmonious they may be. In our judgment, the merger is a wise one, and we hope the State of Massachusetts will permit it to be carried through. President Mellen is undoubtedly right in his belief that the interest of travelers, of shippers, and of investors can be better protected and more efficiently maintained by one great railway corporation than by numbers of competing corporations. The Outlook has frequently asserted that protection of the people in their use of the public utilities cannot and ought not to be provided for by either permitting or encouraging the industrial warfare of competition. Moreover, we welcome this merger at this time because it illustrates in a very striking and practical form the necessity of government regulation of railways. The six New England States, whose railway affairs are to be in the hands of the new corporation, comprise an area of over sixty-four thousand square miles a greater territory than, that of England and Wales-and they

support a population of over six millions of people. The consolidated corporation will represent, in its own issue of stock and in the stock of constituent railway companies previously acquired by lease or purchase, many tens of millions of legitimately invested capital. The prosperity of New England is indissolubly connected with the prosperity of her railways. No reasonable man will stop to debate whether or not a corporation dominating such vast interests should be subject to definite and strict regulation by some power of the people expressed through government. But this great corporation, while nominally regulated by Massachusetts through its charter, penetrates five other great States, and no one State Legislature is competent to frame legislation which shall be both just to the corporation and adequately protective to the inhabitants of the neighboring States intimately concerned. The problem is too general and too complex for State solution. To leave railways without control as private properties means oppression and injustice to the people; to subject railways to the control of individual States means inefficiency on the one hand and oppression and injustice to the railways on the other. It is for this reason that The Outlook believes that Federal control of railways is inevitable and desirable, and it is apparent that the most skillful and able railway managers of the country are coming to the same conclusion.

The Wine Crisis

in France

The vine-clad hills of France figure poetically in history, song, and romance, but the news from that region lately has not been in harmony with its traditions. For years there has been a growing difficulty among the peasants in disposing of their vintage at rates that will permit living on the modest scale to which they have been accustomed. They now seem to have come unanimously to the decision that their grievance has reached a stage that calls for immediate redress and remedy; and as Frenchmen, much like Americans and Englishmen, are inclined to hold the Government

responsible when things go wrong, the vine growers of southern France in the region of the Hérault, the Aude, and the eastern Pyrenees have demanded in no uncertain language that the Government take legislative and administrative measures for repressing adulteration of wines as the first step toward securing a reasonable price for the natural product. The peasants probably are aware that there are already a number of laws on the statute-book against adulteration and "blending" of wines, but they also probably know that these laws have not been rigidly enforced. They now demand the application of "the red-hot iron to the ulcer" and "absolute suppression of all vinous beverages other than perfectly natural wine." Moreover-and this is the most serious phase of the matterthey have not been content merely with formulating radical demands. They went further, and threatened that unless the Government granted these measures before the 10th of June they would refuse to pay taxes. In some cases the peasants did not even wait for the 10th of June, but refused to pay taxes to a Government which they hold has not protected them, and talk of resistance against collection by force is not uncommon. The mottoes on the banners at the great meeting at Perpignan, when one hundred and thirty thousand men, women, and children were in line, bore such inscriptions as, "Bread or a Rifle," "Bread for Our Little Ones," "Le cri du ventre," etc. The situation evidently is a serious one for the Government as well as the winegrowers. The fact seems to be that the various "blendings " and adulterations of wine which have for years been practiced in France, and which have gravely threatened the wine industry, are not the only causes which have tended to diminish the income of the honest producers of natural vintage. The French workman, for instance, especially in Paris, no longer drinks vin ordinaire solely or exclusively with his meals. Beer has become a rival to the national drink of France, and this fact, in connection with a similar state of affairs in other countries formerly good customers for French wines, has led to a diminished demand for wine, both for home consumption

and export. ticularly in England and the United States, has also tended to decrease the export of French wines; while, in addition to these causes, Algeria, formerly an importer of the French product, has now become a competitor, and produces annually two hundred millions of gallons of wine which are admitted free of duty in France. It is, perhaps, not without significance in this disturbed condition of the wine industry of France that the past week has witnessed a consultation between Ambassador Jusserand and Secretary Root at Washington in regard to an agreement between France and America regulating tariff duties. The French Government is evidently bestirring itself to meet as promptly and as best it can the demands of the situation which has become acute in southern France.

Pure food legislation, par

Irish Affairs

The British Premier formally withdrew the Irish Bill last week, expressing his belief that it would have been better if the Irish people had given the details of the measure greater attention. It is apparent that both the Government and Mr. Redmond were misled and taken by surprise by the outburst of adverse sentiment in Ireland. That this sentiment was created entirely by Irish priests who objected to the bill because it put education under the control of laymen seems hardly probable, although undoubtedly the influence of the priests had much to do with the action of the Convention. As a matter of fact, the condition of education is one of the worst features of the situation in Ireland, and the British Government was sincerely desirous of raising its standards and making it more efficient by putting it under the control of Irish laymen. It is not easy to ascertain the real condition of affairs in the island. The Prime Minister declared in Parliament last week that it "C was very satisfactory;" on the other hand, it is reported that in several counties a good deal of disorder exists, that agitation is spreading throughout the south and west, and that a new agrarian movement of great vigor will soon sweep the whole country. Reports of disorders in various

localities must not be takén, however, as indicating a serious condition in a country which finds the picturesque expression of its energy in outbreaks the importance of which are very easily overstated. Very substantial progress has been made toward the betterment of Irish conditions during the past few years. Mr. Horace Plunkett has made a deep impression on the country, and his work for agrarian reform is already showing marked results. The revival of the language and the old literature, the attempt to deepen interest in a national drama and in the expression of the ancient ideals and mood of the Celtic spirit and temperament through the work of such men as Mr. Yeats, although not very deep-rooted in the interest of the Irish as a people, are significant of the passing of the age of exclusive concentration in political agitation and the diffusion of Irish interests over a broader surface of life. The most belligerent supporters of the present agitation seem to be Irish-Americans, some of whom are gesticulating with great energy at the British Government, and saying all sorts of things provocative of blood and slaughter. Some of these gentlemen are undoubtedly sincere; others belong to the ancient and honorable order of professional warriors who have never drawn a sword except in a metaphor, and whose tumultuous eloquence leaves England undisturbed and hardly raises

a smile in this country.

The Hudson Celebration

New York and the whole country are to be congratulated that the celebration of the tercentenary of the discovery of the Hudson River by Henry Hudson, and the centenary of the use of steam as a means of navigation for the first time by Robert Fulton, did not take the form of an exposition. It is, happily, to be entirely free from commercial features and purely historical and pictorial character. The Outlook has reported from time to time various features which will give the celebration a unique and characteristic form and fitly recall to the eye the voyage of the Half Moon and that of the Clermont. The

to take on a

city of New York, the focal point of the celebration, is to build a Hudson Memorial Bridge across the Spuyten Duyvil Creek at the northern end of Manhattan Island, at an expense of three millions of dollars, and this bridge will not only be a historical but it is to be expected that it will also be an artistic monument. It is proposed also to add to the park system of the city a beautiful bit of land, seventy-five acres in extent, on Inwood Hill, a point from which the course of both boats can be seen to a great distance up the river. A plan has been presented which involves action by the State, but in a very modest way-an appropriation of $125,000 for a public park at Verplanck's Point in Westchester. County, which, like Inwood, commands a noble view of the river. This land has many Revolutionary associations. It was the site of Fort Lafayette; it was the point at which Washington received Count Rochambeau in 1872; and it was the site of the King's Ferry, of which the colonists made effective use against the British troops. The Hudson is the great water highway for the whole State; and the commemoration of its discovery and the development of its utility inaugurated by the use of steam are matters of as much interest to Erie County as to the County of New York.

Should Franchises be Capitalized?

In the suit testing the validity of the Eighty-Cent Gas Law of New York is involved the fundamental question as to the capitalization of franchises. On the answer to that question depends, not only the price that the people of New York shall pay for their gas; but also the power which the State may have in regulating the rates charged by monopolies possessing special franchises.

The issue arose in this way: After a legislative investigation into the affairs of the so-called Gas Trust, a law was passed fixing the maximum rate which the Company could charge at eighty

cents a thousand feet. The Consoli

dated Gas Company at once declared