« PredošláPokračovať »
collected by the United States. Mr. Olney declared that that Doctrine cannot be invoked in support of such pretensions; the United States must not make itself an international American boss." He did not add, however, that when he was Secretary of State under the Cleveland administration precisely this charge was brought against his commitment of the Government to what seemed even to many Americans a startlingly highhanded policy regarding Venezuela. Mr. Olney might have followed his destructive criticisms by detailed suggestion as to what should have been done with regard to Panama and Santo Domingo to produce the same result by methods in his estimation less objectionable than those pursued. In discussing the Drago Doctrine regarding the forcible collection of debt, ex-Secretary of State Foster properly declared the doctrine to have been originated by Alexander Hamilton more than a century ago. Mr. Straus, Secretary of Commerce, declared, as did Mr. Bryan at the Peace Congress, that any neutral nation supplying a warring nation with money should be adjudged guilty of a hostile act. Another of Mr. Bryan's proposals at the Congress was echoed by Professor Woolsey, that a "cooling" time of thirty or sixty days should intervene between the proclamation of war and the actual hostilities. Such an arrangement, as many think, might have obviated both the South African and Russo-Japanese wars. Admiral Stockton, Professor Hyde, Mr. Everett P. Wheeler, and Dr. Samuel J. Barrows discussed the subject of protecting private property at sea, an issue perhaps more realizable in favorable action at The Hague than any other.
But, as at the Peace Congress, Mr. Root so at the International Law on Japan meeting, the most noteworthy address was that of the President of the Society, the Hon. Elihu Root, Secretary of State. The determination of questions of National policy, he justly declared, has now shifted from a few rulers in each country to the people, yet the education of public opinion has really only just begun. The Society, he felt, should give to our countrymen a clearer view
of their international rights and responsibilities. To illustrate this kind of service, Mr. Root then attempted to clear away a popular misapprehension concerning a particular problem-the Japanese school dispute. The treaty of 1894 between the United States and Japan provides for equality of treatment "in whatever relates to rights of residence and travel." Under the California laws, however, the San Francisco School Board excluded Japanese children from the primary public schools. The Japanese Government "made representations "—that is, protested-but, fortunately, "never for a moment was there the slightest departure from perfect good temper, mutual confidence, and kindly consideration between the two Governments." Three questions were raised: (1) Is the right to attend the primary schools a right of residence? (2) If so, is the exclusion of Japanese children a deprivation of that right? (3) Has the American Government the Constitutional power to make a treaty agreement with a foreign nation which should be superior to a State law? Popular misapprehension arose from the supposition that in its assertion of the validity of the treaty the American Government was asserting its right to compel California to admit Japanese children to its schools. The treaty did not assert the American Government's authority to compel any State to maintain public schools, or to extend the privileges of its public schools to children of any alien residents. But the treaty did assert, declared Mr. Root, the right of the United States, by treaty, to assure to the citizens of a foreign nation residing in American territory equality of treatment with the citizens of other foreign nations. Hence, as regards education, the effect of such a treaty is not positive and compulsory, but negative and prohibitory. There was and is no question of States' rights involved, says Mr. Root. The Constitution vests the treaty-making power exclusively in the National Government. While there are certain implied limitations arising from other provisions of the Constitution, those limitations do not touch the making of treaty provisions relating to the treatment of aliens within
our territory. Mr. Root quotes decisions of the United States courts confirmatory of this power of treaty-making. "It has been settled for more than a century that the fact that a treaty provision would interfere with or annul the laws of a State as to the aliens concerning whom the treaty is made is no impeachment of the treaty's authority." Moreover,
Since the rights . . . to be accorded to foreigners in our country are a proper subject for treaty provision and since such rights... may be given by treaty in contravention of the laws of any State, it follows of necessity that the treaty-making power alone has authority to determine what those rights... shall be.
Hence, concludes Mr. Root, there was no real question of power and no question of State rights arising under the Japanese treaty. But there was one serious question underlying the whole subject: What was to be the effect upon a proud, sensitive, highly civilized people of the imputations of inferiority and abuse received here?
People now, not governments, make friendship or dislike, sympathy or discord, peace or war... and . people who permit themselves to treat the people of other countries with discourtesy and insult are surely sowing the wind to reap the whirlwind.
A strike of street lamplighters, amusing in some of its aspects but really serious and significant when properly considered, was declared in New York City last week, and is still in progress at this writing. The Consolidated Gas Company has a monopoly in lighting both the streets and the buildings of the city, as it controls all the gas plants and all the public electric light service. The citizens therefore depend on this corporation to make the city streets safe to the passer-by in the darkness of the night. The main avenues and public squares are lighted by electric lamps, which, of course, are illuminated at nightfall and extinguished at daybreak from central stations. But whole districts and many miles of streets are lighted solely by gas lamps. Many of these lamps have special incandescent burners, to light which requires a certain amount of technical knowledge and skill. Several hundred
men are employed to ignite and extinguish these lights, each man being responsible for from one hundred to one hundred and fifty lamps. They have recently been organized into a labor union. On behalf of the union, it is said the men are paid only about a dollar a day for their work, which consists, not only in lighting at night and putting out in the morning, but in keeping each lamp in good condition. The lamplighter has to provide the oil for his torch, to buy his own matches, to supply his for rags cleaning globes, to put new chimneys in when there are breaks, and to keep the mechanical apparatus of the lamp in good condition. early in the morning, and make his rounds in all weathers; and it is quite apparent to the writer of this paragraphwho, during the strike, with the aid of a kitchen chair from his own house, a wax taper, and a private night watchman, laboriously lighted seven lamps on his own city block, in order to make it safe and passable for his family and his neighbors-that the job is not an easy one. Whatever the rights may be in the controversy between the lamplighters and the Gas Company, the company cannot evade the fact that it is responsible, by its contract with the city and its duty to the citizens, for keeping the streets lighted. Efficient management would have foreseen the strike and would have provided men to light the lamps. The company has made no public statement of any kind, so far as we know, in its own defense or in excuse of its dereliction of duty. Thousands of citizens found themselves suddenly suffering from the danger and inconvenience of unlighted streets. Police Commissioner Bingham telephoned instructions to every. precinct police captain to exercise special vigilance in patrolling and protecting the darkened streets, and to have the police officers light as many of the lamps as possible. But in numerous instances the officers did not understand and could not manipulate the mechanism of the lamps. Hundreds of lamps were, as in the instance above referred to, lighted by private citizens, and in many cases lamps thus lighted burned continuously day and night, because the Gas Com
He has to be up very
pany either could not or would not provide men to attend to them. The strike has been regarded with some amusement by the daily newspapers. It has even been suggested that a police officer should be detailed to compel each director of the Gas Company to take one of his kitchen chairs and one of his wax tapers and light each lamp within a certain radius of his own house. It is very likely that the Lamplighters' Union is arrogant and irritating in demanding what it believes to be its just rights, but it is equally apparent that the Gas Company has proved inefficient in dealing with a crisis, throwing the burden on the police department-that is to say, upon the city government. The episode indicates very clearly the need of some intimate and authoritative relation between the municipality and those corporations which have so important a monopoly as that of lighting city streets.
Miss Anna T. Jeanes, of Nourishment at Philadelphia, has estabthe Root lished "The Fund for Rudimentary Schools for Southern Negroes," by a gift of one million dollars. She has intrusted the administration of the fund to Dr. Hollis Burke Frissell, Principal of Hampton Institute, and Dr. Booker T. Washington, Principal of Tuskegee Institute. According to the statement transferring the sum to the trustees and their successors, Miss Jeanes intends this bequest to benefit rural schools. The South is essentially a rural section; and the great majority of. Southern negroes dwell in rural communities. Moreover, of these all but a very small number never have the chance for any but elementary instruction. No one who has ever visited a little district school for negroes can fail to understand the need for such a gift as this. It is in small school-houses, with their irregular attendance and their ill-paid and often incompetent teachers, that the negro race must receive its first and most important lessons, not only in the three R's, but in morality, thrift, and good order. To those who complain that the education of the negro masses has failed, the same answer as that which was given to the
criticism that Christianity was a failure is applicable-it has never been tried. The burden which the Southern white people have laid upon themselves to educate black children as well as white children they have bravely borne; but it is not one which they ought to bear alone. The causes which have at the same time brought to them a dependent race and visited them with poverty were National. Such a gift as the Jeanes bequest is therefore altogether appropriate. Of the trustees this bequest will require the utmost tact and delicacy. Happily, the two men selected are exactly fitted for this benevolent work. Dr. Frissell is not only the foremost leader in the newest development of education in this country, but is that rare kind of man—a practical idealist. Although a Northerner in origin, he has the confidence of the best Virginians, and his influence is extended far beyond the limits of the State and of Hampton's constituency. Dr. Washington every one knows as the leader of his race, not only by virtue of his insight and his energy, but also by virtue of his unfailing sanity and judgment. Under the administration of these two men-one from each racethis fund can do much to vitalize the little district colored schools. The right kind of education for the lowliest negroes is essential to the improvement of the relations between the races in this land.
dawdling over measures demanded by public opinion throughout the State, it has found time to pass a bill demanded only by a class-the women teachers in the public schools of New York City. The bill orders that the "schedules of salaries shall provide that, where men and women are both employed under any particular schedule, there shall be no discrimination in salary on account of the sex of the incumbent of the position." This bill is passed, not in the interest of the schools or of the children, but in the interest of the women teachers. As The Outlook has pointed out, women cannot, as teachers, perform
just the same service as men. At certain ages particularly, boys need the guidance, direction, and example of men. It is only from men that they will learn manliness; and for their exemplars in manliness they should not be forced to seek outside their schools. Even as conditions are now, under which men are paid higher salaries than women, the supply of women teachers is much larger than of male teachers. If this bill becomes law, it will be more difficult than ever to avoid the necessity of keeping boys throughout their entire school life under the control of women exclusively. The Board of Education should be left free to pay such salaries as will secure in right proportion the masculine element in the teaching force. The Outlook believes and has urged that better payment than the teachers receive at present is their right, but it should not be secured in this way. We hope this bill will receive the veto of the Mayor of New York City, and, if it comes to him, of the Governor of the State.
A Tale of Modern
How great is the need for control, not only Buccaneering of the operation, but also of the financial transactions of public service utilities is somewhat startlingly illustrated by a letter, addressed to Governor Hughes, from Mr. R. R. Bowker, formerly the responsible executive official of the Edison Company of New York. He reveals in the frankest fashion the method by which the Edison Company was captured by another company, its capital inflated from fifteen to ninety million dollars, and the resultant organization brought under the control of the great gas monopoly known as the Consolidated Gas Company. He tells of one or two incidents in which politicians of a certain type figured as traders of political influence for money from the Company's treasury. He then gives an account of the transformation of the Company, which in brief is as follows: Instead of buying up competing companies, he succeeded in establishing a policy of applying the earnings above a six per cent. dividend partly to reducing rates and "partly to offsetting prelimi
nary expenses of the Company, and squeezing what little water there was out of the stock." Already there was the prospect of a condition under which the Company could reduce the rate to one-half of what it formerly had been and yet could pay a ten per cent. dividend. In the meantime, by semi-political movements, Mr. Anthony N. Brady, with exMayor Grant and a well-known trust company, had organized a company, bought the franchises of a petty lighting organization, and made a deal "with the late W. C. Whitney, then in control of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, for the supply of its surplus electricity,'" though the Metropolitan Company had need for all its electricity. Thereupon the hint came from a director common to both the Metropolitan and Edison Companies that the sale of the Edison Company would be wise. Deterred from opposition by the fear of the political power of Mr. Whitney and others, the directors acceded. Mr. Bowker had to choose between opposing the deal and getting the best possible price for the stockholders. He himself sacrificed the opportunity to dispose of his own stock at a high price. The Company was greatly overcapitalized by an excessive issue of bonds, which were marketed, if not illegally, at least by a palpable evasion of the law. The order reducing the rates was rescinded. In the midst of these transactions there was a "Wall Street whirl," and a financial battle between the various interests contending for the lighting monopoly and its vast profits. Finally peace was made by consolidation; the Brady-Whitney interests were absorbed and were represented on the gas board. The final result has been that the Consolidated Gas Company is now entire master of the gas and electric lighting of New York City, both public and private. Mr. Bowker says that since the consolidation he believes that the management has dealt fairly with the public. "But the facts remain," he adds, "that it was, and is still, possible to juggle with great properties in the most unscrupulous manner, and that the consumer is required to pay a price that will produce earnings on three times the capitaliza
tion needed by the industry." Mr. Bowker sent this open letter to the Governor to express his approval of the Public Service Commissions Bill now pending before the Legislature. According to this bill, most of our readers will remember, the public utilities of the State will be put under the control of two administrative commissions, one for the city of New York, the other for the rest of the State. Against this measure are united the hack politicians, the Hearst radicals, and many so-called conservative business interests. But the people of the State as a whole, who have no political axes to grind, no pet doctrines to defend, and no big financial projects to steer, are, as Mr. Bowker says, in no mood to have patience with those who are attempting to obstruct Governor Hughes's policy or mangle his measures.
The British Colonial Conference
While the Peace Congress was bringing together representatives of all the great nations in New York City two weeks ago, a Conference of the British Colonial Premiers with a number of the members of their various Cabinets was convened at Whitehall in London, and the worldwide extent of the British Empire was strikingly presented to the eye. This is the fourth of these Conferences, which were inaugurated on the occasion of the first jubilee of Queen Victoria, repeated at the Diamond Jubilee in 1897, and again at the coronation of King Edward, five years ago. In his introductory speech Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the English Premier, declared that it was not a Conference between Premiers and the Colonial Secretary, but between the Premiers and the members of the Imperial Government. The Conference has no power to make binding, decisions; that lies with the country, as voiced in Parliament; but there are matters of great moment which can be arranged, and, above all, there can be free expression of opinion of all the interests of the Empire. The venerable Guildhall has rarely witnessed a more interesting spectacle or a more significant one than that which took
place when the Colonial Premiers were presented with the freedom of the city and afterwards entertained at a luncheon by the Lord Mayor. The Premiers drove in procession through the city, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, representing the Dominion of Canada, riding with General Louis Botha, representing the Transvaal. Dr. Jameson represented Cape Colony; Mr. Frederick R. Moor, Natal; Sir Robert Bond, Newfoundland; Mr. Alfred Deakin, Australia; and Sir Joseph Ward, New Zealand. In 1897 Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the central figure, not only because of his charming personality, but because he was the first French-Canadian Premier of Canada. In 1902 the central figure was Mr. Richard Seddon, of New Zealand, sometimes called the John Burns of New Zealand, a leader in the radical legislation of that colony, who had gone, a poor boy, from a glass factory in Lancashire as an emigrant. At this Conference South Africa is at the forefront in popular interest, and General Botha, who made such a stubborn and gallant fight against the British in South Africa, is the foremost man in popular attention. The sturdy Dutch fighter and Lord Roberts, the British Commander-in-Chief, whose military skill had been taxed to the utmost by General Botha's commanding abilities as a strategist, sat side by side, on the friendliest possible terms—a visible sign of the cordial and equable relations between Great Britain and South Africa. Two resolutions, presented by Australians, have been considered at length; the first inviting the Colonial Secretary to form a plan for acquiring a more intimate knowledge of the colonies, and the second urging that the colonies be represented on the Imperial Council of Defense for advice in regard to local questions on which expert assistance may be desirable. At a great dinner, attended by more than sixteen hundred people, a demonstration was made in favor of preferential treatment for the colonies; and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in the course of an address, declared that Canada was on better terms with the United States than ever before, but that, in time of distress, she would stand by the mother country.