felt by the Danes when he first reached civilization at a Danish port and coolly accepted honors which were conferred without sufficient evidence and which involved some committal of the Danish authorities to his side of the controversy. The fundamental justification of the distrust which has been felt all along in this country by many scientific observers and students of the laws of evidence has been that, to put it squarely, Dr. Cook has not acted as would have acted a man of honor whose claims had been disputed and who knew that they were just. Such a man would have turned every effort and applied every minute to the task of getting his case clearly and strongly before a body of experts whose decision would be accepted the world over. Dr. Cook, on the contrary, has carried on a long series of evasions and delays, and has apparently put his main efforts into making money by lectures and through publication. In this way he gained, some say thirty thousand dollars, some say one hundred thousand dollars. Finally, when patience was all but exhausted, he presented to a foreign court of inquiry a lame and even ridiculous case. The mere fact that he did not offer to appear in person before the court he had himself selected, in order that he might answer inquiries, is most significant.

THE WORLD'S VERDICT

The Outlook has from the first advised its readers not to form a final conclusion on this matter until the evidence was all in and passed upon. It has, however, as a reporter of important news events, narrated from week to week the various comments upon Dr. Cook's story, and only two weeks ago it summarized in a few lines some six or eight important accusations against Dr. Cook, with the comment that if he were so unfortunate a man as to have all these varied accusations by different people unjustly made, the only possibility of reinstatement in the confidence of the people was to appear with evidence before an impartial American scientific body, present his proof, and submit to questioning. We may point out with some satisfaction also that Mr. Kennan's articles in The Outlook entitled "Arctic Work and Arctic Food," while

taking up only one particular aspect of the question, formed, so far as we know, the first attempt on this side of the Atlantic to submit Dr. Cook's narrative in that aspect to anything like scientific analysis and criticism. As we write Dr. Cook's whereabouts remain unknown, and no word has come from him in reply to the findings of the University of Copenhagen. It is now too late for him to attempt any defense by personal assertion, nothing but absolute and conclusive proof will serve; and it is all but incredible that, if such proof exists, it should not have been presented already. It is safe to say that this fraudulent attempt to foist upon the world a tale of Arctic accomplishment will go down in history as one of those strange impostures like that of Ireland, the forger of a play attributed to Shakespeare, of George Psalmanazar (who falsely pretended to be a native of Formosa and wrote an elaborate description of that island, which he had never even visited), or of the Count de Rougemont, who a few years ago fooled scientific England with his vividly invented lies about the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. But these men's falsehoods injured no one personally; Cook's fabrication, if such it be, was an attempt to rob of his just meed of honor a man who had devoted a large part of his life to the great adventure of Polar discovery.

JUDGE LURTON

Public scrutiny of those men who are appointed to the Supreme Bench is the only instrument which the people can use for influencing the character of that Court. While the appointment of Horace Harmon Lurton was still only a matter of surmise, public discussion of his qualification for the post began, and it continued even to the date of his confirmation by the Senate last week. What sort of judge has Judge Lurton been? Has he been simply learned in statutes, decisions, and traditions, or has he been learned in those matters of human life apart from which the profcundest legal principles are but mental abstractions? Is his view of the law mechanical or vital? It is with this sort of questions that the ordinary lay American is concerned. One answer is easily made. President Taft was a judge who

had a vital view of the law, and he thinks well enough of Judge Lurton to select him, first of all, to sit on the Supreme Bench President Taft, moreover, ought to know Judge Lurton. For eight years Judge Taft and Judge Lurton were on the bench in the same circuit, and together reviewed the decisions that came up from district judges. If President Taft does not know, not only Judge Luxton's ilegal: ability, but also his temperament and inclination as a judge, it would hardly seem possible for any one else to do so. Another answer might be found in Judge Lurton's decisions in the many cases concerned with the trust problem. Of these perhaps the most important is known as the Addystone Pipe case. The opinion in this case was written by Judge Taft. Judge, Lurton concurred in this opinion, and the decision of the court was confirmed by the United States Supreme Court. This was the first case practically to show that the Anti-Trust Law was effective. Another

1

(

great case was that of the Continental Wall Paper Company, in which the court decided that the illegality of a combination made it impossible for it to enforce the payment of money due to it under agreements involved in the illegal combination. In this decision Judge Lurton concurred. It is interesting to note that Judge Peckham, whose place Judge Lurton is taking, was one of the dissenting judges when the Supreme Court confirmed this decision. It is clear, therefore, that in the matter of trust decisions Judge Lurton has upheld those laws which give power to the Federal Government. Further answer might be had from decisions in other cases, particularly those in which the question of employer's liability is raised. Some criticism has been directed against Judge Lurton on the ground that he has not recognized the actual conditions of life which put the employee in a very different position with relation to his employer from that which he held in the earlier days when the traditions of the law were being formed. However this may be, it is clear from more than one decision of Judge Lurton that he recognizes certain elements of corporate responsibility to employees that other judges, have overlooked. For example, in the case of a brakeman killed

by a defect in a car which did not belong to the railway on which he was working but which was running on its line. Judge Lurton held that the railway's responsibility extended to the duty of properly inspecting all the cars which ran on its lines. One criticism which has been directed against Judge Lurton ought to be noted— that he is sixty-five years old. If this is a defect, it is one which Judge Lurton him self can, unfortunately, not repair. The real significance of this criticism lies in the fact that most men at sixty-five are inclined to look backward, not forward, and are governed by unchangeable opinions. It is hardly fair, however, to assume that Judge Lurton is not young in mind and heart. It is much better to have a man ripe in years and yet elastic in mind in the Supreme Court than to have there a man who, however young in years, is mentally rigid. Judge Lurton is a native of Kentucky, and for sixteen years he has been a judge on the Sixth United States Circuit, with headquarters in Tennessee.

INVESTIGATION PROMISED

As we anticipated, the Secretary of the Interior has demanded a Congressional investigation of the charges preferred against him and his department by "Collier's Weekly" and Representative Hitchcock. It is announced, apparently by authority, that this investigation will be granted by the Senate, presumably to be begun immediately after the holidays. That there should be such an investigation in justice not less to the Secretary of the Interior than to the public we have already affirmed. It should be conducted by Congress because Congress has power to summon witnesses and compel attendance. It should be conducted in the open,, not in secret; or, if that is for any reason impracticable, not only the results but the evidence should be made public at the earliest possible date. It should be conducted by the Senate rather than by th House, and by a Standing Committee rather than by any committee especially appointed, because, whether justly or not, the Speaker of the House is popularly believed to be determinedly opposed to the Administration's policy of conserving the National resources for the Nation's benefit,

and because any special committee would be more or less liable to newspaper suspicion of being selected to thwart rather than to promote that policy. We repeat what we have heretofore said, that while there is a real difference between Mr. Pinchot and Mr. Ballinger, partly in method, partly temperamental, and while there is not that cordial co-operation between their Departments that there should be, we believe that the so-called Ballinger-Pinchot controversy is to a considerable extent the creation of journalistic imagination; and that both men are sincerely desirous of preserving the Nation's wealth for the Nation's benefit. It may be that this so-called controversy may prove beneficial rather than injurious; for the great peril to National conservation is public apathy, and the newspaper reports, while greatly exaggerating the matter, have concentrated public attention on the subject as nothing else, probably, could have done so effectively. The public will now have a right to demand that "Collier's Weekly" and Representative Hitchcock either make good their charges before the Senate committee when appointed, or withdraw them; and it will also have a right to expect that the committee will ascertain how much truth there is in the current reports that the Land Office and the Bureau of Forestry are not co-operating, and, if there is any truth, will either diplomatically bring about a better co-operation or fix the blame for the failure where it belongs.

COAL LANDS ON OUR PUBLIC DOMAIN

To the great satisfaction and relief of all friends of the conservation of our natural resources, a bill was introduced last week in the House of Representatives to conserve a vital resource-coal. The bill aims to separate surface rights from mineral deposits on our public lands. As was appropriate, it was introduced by Mr. Mondell, Chairman of the Public Lands Committee. When Secretary Ballinger, of the Department of the Interior, was Land Commissioner, he declared that

The object to be attained. is to conserve the coal deposits as a public utility and to prevent monopoly and extortion in their distribution. This may be accomplished either through a leasing system by

which the title would remain in the Government under proper regulation and supervision by the Secretary of the Interior, or through the sale of the deposits with restrictions on their mining and use which would control the minimum output and conserve the deposits as a public utility under similar regulations. As regards the future disposition of coal lands, I am impressed with the belief that the most advantageous method will be found in a measure authorizing the sale of the coal deposits in the lands, subject to forfeiture for failure to exercise the rights granted under such reasonable regulations as may be imposed.

Mr. Dennett, the present Land Commissioner, says that President Roosevelt's Message at the beginning of the first session of the Sixtieth Congress indorsed this. Mr. Dennett's quotation from that Message, however, indicates Mr. Roosevelt's willingness to adopt either of two plans, but a preference for the first and against the second, thus differing from Mr. Ballinger. Mr. Roosevelt's view was expressed as follows:

In my judgment, the Government should have the right to keep the fee of the coal, oil, and gas fields in its own possession and to lease the rights to develop them under proper regulations; or else, if the Congress will not adopt this method, the coal deposits should be sold under limitations to conserve them as public utilities, the right to mine coal being separated from the title to the soil.

The Outlook prefers the first of these alternatives. It believes, with Mr. Roosevelt and as against Mr. Ballinger, that a method of leasing is better than a method of sale. The latter should be adopted only if Congress will not adopt the first.

TWO VIEWS OF DUTY

In his annual

report Mr. Dennett, Land Commissioner, indorses, as does Secretary Ballinger, the policy of the Roosevelt Administration regarding the conservation of our natural resources-lands, forest, waters, minerals. Its prosecution by the Taft Administration, however, according to Mr. Dennett, must be carried on, so far as the Executive branch of the Government is concerned, within the powers delegated to it by Congress. For instance, he says:

The Executive officer clothed with the administration of the public land law can act only pursuant to the laws enacted by Congress. He cannot legislate nor can he substitute his judgment for that of Con

gress. To prevent fraud and in aid of proposed legislation... he may temporarily suspend from disposition portions of the public domain, but he cannot permanently declare reservations except where authorized by Congress.

In his address at Milwaukee the other day (his first important speech since leaving office) another view of the Executive's duty was expressed by the Hon. James R. Garfield, Secretary of the Interior in the Roosevelt Administration. He thus correctly outlined the principle which governed that Administration :

The Executive is a trustee of the property, rights, and interests of the public. The people properly consider the Executive as their particular advocate, their special representative. His stewardship carries with it grave responsibilities and affords splendid opportunities to serve the people well. President Roosevelt accepted both responsibilities and opportunities. The work for conservation was possible because he was constantly looking out for the public interest, and was willing to take action for the public welfare unless there was some prohibition under the Constitution or in law to prevent such action.

But, as Mr. Garfield concludes, the fight for conservation is now in the halls of Congress :

The present Administration has recommended and outlined the legislation i deems necessary to carry out most effectively the work and policy. It now rests with our representatives in Senate and House to do their share in fulfilling the pledge given our people that our vital natural resources shall be conserved and used for the benefit of all the people of this and future generations. It is not an easy task to obtain legislation which is opposed by great vested interests. We may be sure that all the men and corporations who have in years gone acquired ownership or control of land, timber, coal, oil, phosphates, and water, free from regulation or condition and without just compensation to the public, will not voluntarily acquiesce in the proposed changes. There is no danger that the rights and demands of such interests will be neglected; the danger is that the public interest may be forgotten.

As Mr. Garfield was Commissioner of Corporations, and later Secretary of the Interior, he is in a good position to judge when he says that the fight for regulation of the use of natural resources is of the same character as that for control of corporations, but that it is even more vital to the permanency of our Nation :

Both questions are ethical and social as well as industrial and political. .

Both

widen individual opportunity and increase National as well as individual efficiency. Each policy is founded upon the proposition that the public welfare is of higher importance than private interest, and that, in case of conflict, public welfare must control. This conclusion actuated the Roosevelt and doubtless actuates the Taft Administration. As to the Executive's exercise of his function, however, The Outlook believes with Mr. Garfield that a broad, not a narrow, construction of discretion is the one in harmony with the spirit of our time.

AMBASSADORIAL APPOINTMENTS

Last week President
Taft sent to the Senate

the names of three appointees as Ambassadors, eleven as Minof Embassy or Legation. The appointees isters, and a large number as Secretaries were promptly confirmed. First on the list was the name of the Hon. Robert Bacon, of New York, as Ambassador to France; an admirable appointment. At a time when the question of our tariff relations with France is pressing we are sending thither a representative who, as former member of the firm of J. P. Morgan & Co. and later as Assistant Secretary and Secretary of State, has had valuable experience in business and in diplomacy. Personally a singularly winsome man and with a character of rare fidelity and conscientiousness, Mr. Bacon may be depended on to repeat the successes of his immediate predecessors as Ambassador, General Horace Porter and Mr. Henry White. So admirable was the last named in this and other positions that the announcement of a change in our representation at Paris came as a surprise which was turned into a disappointment. when it was disclosed that Mr. White was not to be promoted to London, but was to be retired from a service in which he had shown remarkable efficiency for a quarter of a century. Mr. White and Mr. Bacon represent thoroughly simplicity, straightforwardness, sincerity, breadth of vision, and grasp of detail. If Mr. Bacon's appointment is good, that of Mr. Richard C. Kerens, of Missouri, as Ambassador to Austria is doubtful. We have not been happy in some of our recent representations to the Court of Vienna, perhaps the most exclusive court in Europe. To

it we now send a man who is without diplomatic training or experience. Mr. Kerens was born in Ireland; served in .the Union army throughout the Civil War; afterwards became a railway contractor and political boss of the Mark Hanna type. He has been the Missouri member of the Republican National Committee. He has been three times a candidate for the United States Senate. He is known for his great contributions to campaign funds. So far from barring appointments to office, this latter fact was too much in evidence as a reason for appointment. We have been flattering ourselves that we had outgrown the spoils system. Almost all of Mr. Taft's other selections seem to have been taken with an eye single to merit, but the appointment of Mr. Kerens looks very much like a reward for political services and as the easiest way out of a quarrel among Missouri politicians. If so, the friends of Civil Service Reform have cause for chagrin.

PROMOTION FOR MERIT

The third ambassadorial appointment is that of the Hon. Henry Lane Wilson, of the State of Washington, now Minister to Belgium, to be Ambassador to Mexico. Twelve years ago Mr. Wilson was made Minister to Chili, from which post he went to Belgium. His continued promotion is therefore in line with the policy of Secretaries Hay, Root, and Knox in advancing our diplomatic representatives whenever possible. The same may be said of the promotion of Mr. Charles Page Bryan from Portugal to Belgium, filling Mr. Wilson's place; of Mr. Henry P. Fletcher, of Pennsylvania, our efficient First Secretary at Peking, to be Minister to Chili; of Mr. Reynolds Hitt, Secretary at Berlin, to be Minister to Panama; and of Mr. Fenton McCreery, of Michigan, Minister to Santo Domingo, to be Minister to Honduras. The other ministerial changes call for individual comment. That of Mr. William James Calhoun, of Illinois, to be Minister (and presumably in a short time Ambassador) to China has already been chronicled in these columns. Mr. Edwin Vernon Morgan, Minister to Cuba, is made Minister to Paraguay-hardly a promotion, one would think, in view of the relative

amount of influence to be exercised. This is apparently confirmed by the transference of so important a diplomat as Mr. John B. Jackson, of New Jersey, to Cuba. Mr. Jackson entered the service as Second Secretary to our Legation at Berlin, and before it was raised to an Embassy was made First Secretary. In 1902 he was appointed Minister to Greece, his duties being later extended to include Rumania, Bulgaria, and Servia. Two years ago he became Minister to Persia. The post of Minister to Cuba is thus heightened in importance, as is fitting when one considers the Cuban situation. Other interesting appointments are those of ex-Governor Henry T. Gage, of California, a man without diplomatic experience, to be Minister to Portugal, and of Mr. Charles W. Russell, now Assistent Attorney-General, but with experience gained on several semi-diplomatic missions, to be Minister to Persia. Other men who have had diplomatic experience are Mr. Laurits S. Swenson, of Minnesota, Minister to Denmark from 1897 to 1905, to be Minister to Switzerland, and Mr. Horace C. Knowles, of Delaware, transferred from Nicaragua to Santo Domingo. Noteworthy secretarial promotions are those of Mr. Peter Augustus Jay, Secretary of the Tokyo Embassy, to be Agent and Consul-General at Cairo; Mr. George Post Wheeler, Second Secretary of the Embassy, to be Secretary of the Embassy at St. Petersburg; and Mr. Lewis Einstein, the accomplished writer, formerly Secretary of the Constantinople Embassy, to the very important position of Secretary of the Peking Legation. These and the many other transfers of secretaries are emphatically in line with President Taft's admirable Executive order on which we commented editorially last week.