Professional Documents
Culture Documents
16
The
Na+ion
[Vol. gs,.Wr
2458
CRUfUDER.
The Nation
Aug. 8, 19121
ciples of progress, which he well undel found to hurl at them. This the Prasj
standsmust
come aboutbyslow
an dent finds in the threatof t a r M change;
old argumentthat thc
cautious
experimentation,
proving
a andthehoary
success of theDemocraticpartywil
things.-andholdingfastthatwhich
1
mean panic and disaster. It seems hard
good, and never by hurricane method:
Thorodghly well-considered is also wha 1y credible t h a t Mr. Taft, after what hl
hassought tc do, andstillfavors,
iI
Mr. Taft has to say about maintainin
the way of pruningawaythe
excessel
the fundamental guarantees of the Cor
andenormities of theprotective tariff
stitution, In all its scope and adaptabi
should fall into this ancient vein of ca
ity, .and abouttheduty
of resistin;
lamity-howlmg, but he does, Ohio blooc
Stoutly every attempt t o undermine th
willtell.Broughtup
in thetraditior
independence
and
authority
of th
that the way to beat the Democrats
ir
courts In this last,matter, he 1s guilt
to accusethem
of intending t o clost
of unfarmessinassociating
Woodro5
all the mills and
r u m all the farmers
Wilson
wlth
Theodore
Roosevelt.
H8
Mr. Taft reverts to it in his speech of ac
should have known that Mr. Wilson ha
ceptance. He
attempts
once more t c
expressed himself strongly-against ax
identify
the
Republican
party
wit1
plyingtherecall
t o judges.And
nl
prosperity.Yethebetrays
a high13
one has ever charged that theDemocrat
uncertain
and
vacillating
idea
aboul
ic candidate has a particle of sympath
prosperity. In onepassagehe~nformh
with what President Taft properly call;
us that the Payne-Aldrich tariff blll has
Mr. Roosevelts grotesque notion;
gradually restored prosperity, since thc
about the recallof Judicial decisions..
panic of 1907. Only a littlefurther
The President speaks of the issue i r
on, however, he tells us that the accept.
this campaign, but does not make it en
mce of the Democratic tariff plan would
tirely certain what hethinks the issue is
postpone
indefinitely
the
coming
of
At one point he seems to make
it the pres
?rosperity Thus it Fppears thatthe
ervatlon of theRepublicanparty.
Ht
restored prosper~tyjs still t o come. But
referstotheissuepresentedto
thc
tt the end of his speech Mr. T a f t Points
Conventlon, as onewhichconstitutec
.o a prosperitywhichisjust
at Our
a c r m s in the partys life. This war
loor, and,for a momentforgetful of
forced by theattempt
t o violate thc
;he tariff, speaks of the need of discourthlrd-termtradition,and
also to nom1
g m g demagogic agitation, as the only
nate a manwho would havecommit
;hmgwhichcanpreventthe
enjoyted the party to radical proposalsinvolv,
nent by the whole
people of the great
ingdangerouschangesinourpreseni
n-osperity which the
and the
Constitutional
form
of representativc
)resent conditions ought to bring US.
governmentandourindependentjudi
Thls,as
George I11 said of Shake.
clary. In this view, theresult of the
;peare, is sad stuff. Yet-no one should
struggleat Chicago was t o save t h e
werlook thesignificance of it. It unRepublican
party
f o r Tuture
useful,
loubtedlymeansthattheRepdblicaa
n e m Thisleads Mr. Taft t o a long
nanagers
have
decided tomakeone
review of what that party has been and
nore dead set at the Presidency on the
done, togetherwithanaccount
of thc
ugh-protection
issue.
The
old a x u achievements of his own Administration.
nents will be refurbished, the old cries
In all this we get little but the ordinary
,evived, andthe old collectorswill
commonplaces of t h e callipaign orator,
ent out to fly the
fat ont of t h e prothoughthistimethepointingwlth
ected manufacturers. It
a choice of
prideis followed by aviewingwith
lattle-ground w h x G the Democrats
alarm of anunusualsort,for
to-day
lught to welcome.
the alarm is felt lest the RegubIican par.
ty may be, notmerelydefeatedbyits
OVERRIDING A VETO.
historic foe, but. destroyed by internai
factions.
The action of the Senate last week in
Evidently,
however,
the
President
,assing a bill over the President's head
feels that this appeal to keep the Repub- ;aye Mr. Taft a newexperience.
He
lican party alive is not enough by itself. tas vetoedimportant
tariff measures
Thatwilldo
as againstthe Roosevelt vith impunity. Even his disapproval of
deserters and traitors, but the campaign he Arizona-New Mexico Statehoodbill
is also to be waged against Democrats,
vas sustained.Buthlsrefusaltosign
and
therefore
some
missile
must
be A bill for the relief of certain persons
I18
tive adopted, and since the averageholding is sixty acres, this would make his
l a n d cost the farmer $19.80 more at the
least, and possibly $54.60.
Here
are
obviously
several
pretty
problems. Is it right to saddle the losses
of oneset of menuponanotherset?
Wouldtheaddition
of $19.80 o r $54.60
to the price of the land take away its
attraction f o r practicalfarmers,?
Did
notthetradesmenassumetherisk
in
furnishingsuppliesandcashingtimechecks? To thislastquestion.it
is replied thattheywererelying
on the
Government, in case of any failure on
thepart of thecontractor.Theywere
not intimately acquainted with the technicalities,buttheyknewtheywere
dealing
with
a contractor
with
the
UnitedStates.
It was
evenasserted
that the unlucky contractor himself had
been misled by therepresentation of
Government officials, and so was not altogethertoblameforhisimpossible
contract.PresidentTaft,
upon theadvice of hisSecretary
of theInterior,
vetoed the bill upon the ground that
it
~.
was of retroactive character and imposed an additional burden upon certain of
the settlers. Everybody agreed
that the
small tradesmen had suffered hardship.
The President preferred to let them suffer it toimposing i t upon the settlers.
The Senate apparently prefers to let the
settlers suffer it. And a bill is t o be introduced relievmg the project, that is,
the
settlers,
from
the
burden.
If
it
passes, the
kind-hearted
Government
will in the end bear this burden, as
it
bears so manyothers,andthematter
will thus have happily progressed
To where beyond these voices there
peace.
ButbeforetheSenatemade
up its
mindtopassthebilloverthe
veto, it
indulgedin some debate upon t h e veto
poweritself.SenatorCumminsled
off
i n thls branch of t h e discussion with an
observation
that
provoked
unusually
pointed
comment.
I do
not
understand, hesaid,flatly,
that t h e veto
power given by our Constitution to
the
President ought to be used in order t c
overthrowthe
mill of Congress in re.
spect to such a measure. H e continued:
I do not believe that the veto power in a
free country 1s Intendedtoauthorize
thc
Executive t o vetoeverymeasurewhich
he
mould have opposed
had he been a merabe1
of the legislative trlbunal -which passed
it
I thlnk we oughtto
pass this bill
notmithstandmgtheveto
of t h e Presldenf
simply,
f o r no other reason, because
Congress has determined that
shallbe-
. . .
micome a lam, and because it is not one of pany i n 1907do the majority and
the cases in whwh aPresident
ought t o nority reports conflict. The minority beinterpose hls veto.
iieves thatthedinnerconferences
of
Irust andindependentmanagerswere
the
shadow
of priceunderstandings
rather than their substance; but it con;iderably modifies the scope of this conAusion by saying that there 1s complete accord as topricesbetweenthe
R u s t a n d its rivals, and that in genertl, the United States Steel Corporation
jets the prices and the independents follow. As tothe
episode of 1907, the
ninorlty believes it to have %ut little
practicalbearing on theseriousissues
,f which we are treating, and dissents
irom the majoritys conclusion without
further comment.
The findings of fact on which there is
:omplete agreement cover wide ground.
They are not new discoveries; we point2d out,whentheCommitteebeganits
worJi, that there could be little that had
not, in one way or another, been brought
alreadytopublic
knowledge.
the
RE- hearingshave
at leasthad the effect,
when taken along with the earlier hearTheso-calledStanleyCommittee
of ings by theIndustrial Commission. of
theHouse
of Representativeswasapziving tofactswhichweregenerally
pointedinMay of last year t o investi- known the seal of expert testimony. Of
gatetheUnitedStatesSteelCorporathese facts, the most essential are as foltlons history, with a view to throwing Lows: Thegreatconsolidationswhich
light on its allegedviolations
of the xlminated
in
the
billion-dollar
steel
Anti-Trust law, anditsrelationswith
merger were intended by their authors,
independentproducers,withrailways,
among otherthings,torestrict
compewith
interlocking
directorates,
wlth
;itlonandmaintainprices:andtheir
StockExchangeoperations,with
pro- stock wasprodigiouslyandintentionmotingsyndicates,
and withfinancial
f o r promcswatered. The sum paid
p a n m . It has conducted a n exhaustive :ion services was so- excessive as t o bear,
series of public hearings during the fif- wen in the language.of the minority r e
gort, no relationwhatevertotheserteen past months, in which much very
vice rendered, the risk run, and the capfrank
testimony
has
been given
.taladvanced.Thesteelindustryitfinanciersconnectedwiththecorporatlon and with the steel industry, and it ;elf, as well as the investing public, h a s
suffered serious detriment from theperhas now submitted its report.
The findings of the Committees mem- :istent and pernicious practice of stock
manipulation and stock inflatlon by cerbers, so faras.regardstheremedial
legislation suggested for the evils which ;ain financiers who had secured thecomof s o large
they believe t o have been disclosed, are ,leteandabsolutemastery
not unanimous; there is, in fact, so wide 3 p a r t of this great business. The coma divergence of opinion as to necessitatc pany possesses enormouscontrolover
three distinct reports. But
on the ques otheroutsideenterpr~sesthroughthe
system of interlocking
dlrectorqtes
tion of facts,and o n the question
the use of the holding-company dewhat those facts mean, there is surpris
inglycompleteagreement.
In only twr vice.
Themajorityreportholds
that the
essential
considerations-the
influence
dinnerdJ
were
instituted
as
a
of the Gary dinners on arbitrary main Gary
tenance of prices and the culpability 01 meansfornotifyingindependentproPresident Roosevelt in agreeing not
t c ducers of mhat theSteelCarporations
block theSteelCorporations
purchaac attitude was, and f o r impressing upon
concernedthat
it mas thepart Of
of theTennessee
Coal andIron Corm
This position was a t once challenged.
I understand,remarkedSenator
Sutherland, the alternative of t h e veto
istheapproval
01 a bill.
Does the
SenatorthinkthePresidentoughtta
approve a bill which he, in fact, does not
approve?But the SenatorfromIova
wasnot t o becaught.
I do, most emphatically, he replied.
Senator
Root
thenwantedtoknow
upon what Mr.
Cummins based his extraordinary proposition, and cited Mr. Clevelands vetoes
of priva.tepension bills, separateand
relatively
insignificant
measures, as
also the practice of giving Governors the
authoritytovetoitems
in appropriation bllls. The answer of the Iowa Senator was not very specific, but for a few
momentsthedebatetook
an enjoyable
turn into the preserves of political philosophy.
Aug. 8,
19121
wlsdomandprudencetogovernthemselvesaccordingly.
It finds that the
Tennessee Coal purchase of 1907 was
in violation of the law; that President
Roosevelthad no right t o condoneor
encourage its violation, thztthepurchaseTvas-notnecessary
t o stop t h e
panic,anddid
not stop It. InrelectIng the
absurdlties
which
the
Steel
Trust financiers themselves have uttered
regarding
that
purchase
as t h e sole
means of averting general financial ruin,
theCommittee,fortunately,refuses
to
endorse the other and greater absurdity,
that the whole panlc of 1907 was caused
bytheSteelTrustinsiders
in order
to capture the Tennessee Coal.
The body of evidence supporting these
variousconclusionscanhardlybeignoredhereafter,
in discussions of t h e
generalsublect.Thequestion
of reme d y is another matter. The Committees
maJorltyadvocateswidepublicity,fre<queutreports on thecompanybythe
Commissioner of Corporations,andthe
prohibition of ownership of interstate
railwayenterprisesbyindustrial
concerns. It suggestsamendments of the
Anti-Trustlaw,wherebypartiesinJuriOUSIYaffected by trade combinations may
bring suit under the law, equally wlth
t h e official Covern7ieD.t prosecutors; and
it proposes that where restraint of trade
shall have been establishedin t h e course
of a suit, the burden of proving reasonableness shall rest on thepartywho
.contends that the restraint is reasonable.
It recommends a billprohibitingdlrectors in companies
manufacturing
railway steel or minlng coal from servl n g on - t h e boards of interstaterailways. The minority report recommends
,an Interstate Commission of Industry,
which shall supervise interstate corporations and, in general, fix prices f o r the
goods of such
corporations
when
existingpricesare
found t o be unreasonable by some competent authority to
bo determined
hereafter.
This shad.owy repetition of the notion thrown out
In his
evidencebyJudge
Gary, last
year, the majority report positively disapproves, remarking that the real evils
.of the situation could not be cured by
s m h an expedient, and that such
control, semi- socialistic^ in its nature, is
.beyond the power vested by the Constitution in the Federal Congress. There
canbe-littledoubtthat
this last-men;tionedproposalwillbethefocus
of a
good deal of controversy in the next3w
1-1
9
months. To people who have any doubt
aboutthemerits
of t h e suggestion, it
may be well t o recall the pllain and incmve comment of the veteran jurist and
legislator,ex-SenatorEdmunds,in
his
statement of last December:
Such- a commlsslon. substituted for the
courts of Justice, necessarily lmphes that
1~ is t o exerclse a discretion 1n granting
o r wvlthholding privileges that are not defined by law; and It is clear, from human
experience, that it would be in danger of
becomlng the victlm of political influences
BEITISE LNIVERLSITY P R O B L E S .
T o mostAmericans,
theuniversities
of Great
Britain
to-day
are
neither
more nor fewerthantheywere
fifty
years ago, o r thantheywillbeEfty
years hence. Oxford and Cambridge, and
if one thinks a second time, Edlnburgh,
they have always been, and Oxford and
Cambridge
and
Edinburgh
they
will
continue to be. To think otherwise
would be as difficult as to imagine direct
primariesformembers
of Parliament.
Yet the facts are far different.Within
thelastthirty-fiveyears
no less t h a n
seven universities have been founded in
England, five of themsince 1899; and
the character of the Unlversity of London ha.s been
transformed.
Birmipgham, Bristo!, Leeds, Liverpool. Manchester,
and
Sheffield, alongwithWales,
now
boast
institutions
of learning
which, if lacking
the
prestige
that
crownstheirolderrivals,have
a freedom from the p%st and an ambitlon for
the future that have already given them
a speclalplaceintheworld
of scholarship.Nor has theirappearance been
without effect upon theancientestablishments. F o r theircreationhasbeen
more t h a n a n evidence of localaspiration. It is a symptom of dissatisfaction
with the rigid policy t h a t has been followed so consistently at Oxford
and
Cambridge,whichinconsequencehave
felt compelled toadmitmodlficatlons
here and there.
This new and rapid development has
brought novel problems in its wake, and
these have just been the subject
of consideration .at a Congress of the Universities of the Empire. Some of these are
parallel to problems
of our omn, one such
being the question
of division of work
amonguniversities.Thenewuniversities
are
much
more
nar;owly
limited in resources than the older universities. For this reasontheycannot
at-
n e s , provide the
equipment he
even
when It lnvolves serious strain on itsresourc~es. Prlvate donorsmay then step in
and aid
the
Sometlmes, agaln, a
private donor Interested ~n particular
a
university may provlde a handsome endonrment f o r some special branch of work In It
The
12-O
A V(S!.E~ A
(A
VOT$
Third
FOR
Pa&
THAT.
Version.)
A votes
a vote
for
a that.
an a that?
a that an a that,
red flag, an a that,
Well make concessions
to his
A votes a vote for a that.
kind;
Nation