The subscription price of The Outlook is Three Dollars a year, payable in advance. Ten cents a copy. Postage is prepaid by the publishers for all subscriptions in the United States, Hawaiian Islands, Philippine Islands, Guam, Porto Rico, Tutuila (Samoa), Shanghai, Canal Zone, Cuba, and Mexico. For Canada $1.20 should be added for postage, and for all other countries in the Postal Union $1.56 should be added for postage. Change of address: When a change of address is ordered, both the new and the old address must be given. The notice should be sent one week before the change is to take effect. rected the attention of the whole Nation to the approaching trial of William D. Haywood, charged with the assassina- tion of former Governor Steunenberg, of Idaho. The trial, the various aspects of which were described at length by Mr. Luke Grant, of Chicago, in The Outlook for April 6, is set for May 9 at Boisé, Idaho. Many labor organizations of the country have interested themselves in Haywood's defense, which is an en- tirely proper thing to do if this interest is kept within the bounds of law, order, and decency. But some of the revolu- tionary and demagogic self-appointed labor leaders have surpassed all limits of public morals in their attempts to preju- dice the case. In a Socialistic paper published in Kansas, and which we are informed has a large circulation, Eugene Debs prints a hysterical and outrageous attack upon President Roosevelt, called out by the recent publication of a private communication to Congressman Sherman in which the President charac- terized Messrs. Moyer, Haywood, and Debs along with Mr. Harriman as un- He [the President] uttered a lie as black and damnable, a calumny as foul and atro- cious, as ever issued from a human throat. The men he thus traduced and vilified, sit- ting in their prison cells for having dutifully served their fellow-workers and having spurned the bribes of their masters, tran- scend immeasurably the man in the White House, who with the cruel malevolence of a barbarian has pronounced their doom. There is not a bloated plutocrat in the land who would not hail with joy the election of William H. Taft as President; he would be almost as acceptable to these vultures as Roosevelt himself. Such is Theodore Roosevelt, the President, who condemns workingmen as murderers when they are objectionable to the trusts that control his Of course the President has never con- 1 ists, but represents comparatively few trades unions. On its official stationery the words are printed: "Death cannot, will not, and shall not claim our brother." President Roosevelt turned the shafts of criticism leveled at himself against his critics. Referring to the above phrase, he said: "This shows that you and your associates are not demanding a fair trial, but are announcing in advance that the verdict shall only be one way, and that you will not tolerate any other verdict. Such action is flagrant in its impropriety, and I join heartily in condemning it." The President, while declaring that his characterization of the accused men could not in any sense be interpreted as an opinion of their guilt in connection with the murder of Steunenberg, did not mince words in repeating his private opinion of them. "Messrs. Moyer, Haywood, and Debs," he said, "stand as representatives of those men who have done as much to discredit the labor movement as the worst speculative financiers or most unscrupulous employers of labor and debauchers of legislatures have done to discredit honest capitalists and fair-dealing business men. They stand as the representatives of those men who by their public utterances and manifestoes, by the utterances of the papers they control or inspire, and by the words and deeds of those associated with or subordinated to them, habitually appear as guilty of incitement to or apology for bloodshed and violence. If that does not constitute undesirable citizenship, then there can never be any undesirable citizens." This letter of the President is written at a time when his political enemies are doing all they can to turn the "labor vote against him and his policies. Its courage and practical eftectiveness as a reply will be widely recognized by all good citizens. Who is Honoré What Honoré Jaxon Jaxon, the man who Represents wrote the letter which drew forth the denunciation of the President? Jaxon cannot be considered a representative of organized labor, although at various times in his career in the United States he has been connected with labor unions. Jaxon is a Canadian with a strong streak of Indian blood in his veins. He acted as secretary of state" to Louis Riel in the Northwest Rebellion, escaped from a Canadian prison after the rebellion was put down, and reached Chicago during a strike of carpenters in 1886. He sought admission to the union, and because of his ability to speak and write he soon was in charge of the strike. With a map of the city before him, he marked off the buildings where nonunion men were employed, and is credited with being the first man to introduce "slugging" tactics on a systematic basis into Chicago's industrial disputes. Since then he has worked at various occupations. He has engaged in contracting and building, he has studied law, he has worked as a canvasser and solicitor, and three years ago attained some notoriety as the first disciple of Jacob Beilhart, the founder and leader of the Spirit Fruit cult. Jaxon is now a strong advocate of the doctrine of "non-resistance." His claim to recognition as a labor representative rests on the fact that he is a member of the Canvassers' and Solicitors' Union. This is a local organization not recognized by the American Federation of Labor, and its membership is composed of Jaxon and one other man, also an agitator. Between them they pay the small per capita tax necessary to entitle them to representation in the Chicago Federation of Labor for the privilege of airing their theories the floor and writing resolutions. Jaxon courts notoriety, and in getting recognition from the President of the United States he has reached the height of his ambition. had accepted a rate of six cents a hundred pounds on oil shipped from Whiting, Indiana, to East St. Louis, Illinois, when the published tariffs fixed the legal rate at eighteen cents, and a rate of seven and a half cents a hundred pounds on oil shipped from Chapell, Illinois, to St. Louis, the legal rate being nineteen and a half cents. In defense the Compány contended that the rates were not solicited or accepted knowingly or with an intent to violate the law; that the Chicago and Aiton Railroad is not now nor ever has been engaged in inter-State commerce; that the tariffs on which the Government based much of its case had not been posted in accordance with the governing statute; and that rates equivalent to the concessions alleged to have been accepted were available over the Burlington and the Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railways. It is said that during the six weeks' duration of the trial more than three tons of documentary evidence were submitted to the jury. Way bills, shipping orders, receipts, pages from account books, and transcripts of records. to the number of more than fifteen thousand were put in evidence. After only two hours' deliberation the jury returned a verdict of guilty on 1,462 counts, the other counts in the indictment having been stricken out by the presiding judge in his charge to the jury. A motion for a new trial was entered by the defense, and it is almost certain that the case will be carried on appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The penalty for the offenses of which the Standard is convicted would be fines amounting to $1,462,000, if the minimum penalty of $1,000 prescribed by the Elkins Law were imposed. The maximum penalty of $20,000 for each offense, which it is, of course, inconceivable that the judge would inflict, would make an aggregate fine of nearly thirty million dollars. The conviction of the Standard in such full measure is an ample justification of the statement made by Mr. Garfield, Commissioner of Corporations (now Secretary of the Interior), in submitting last May his report on the transportation of petroleum, that "the Standard Oil Company has habitually received from the railroads, and is now receiving, secret rates and other unjust and other unjust and illegal discriminations. Many of these discriminations were clearly in violation of the inter-State commerce law." It will be remembered that the truth of this statement was strenuously and half-contemptuously denied by the officials of the Company. Mr. Rogers and Mr. Archbold, two vice-presidents of the Standard, in commenting on Mr. Garfield's report, declared: "We say flatly that any assertion that the Standard Oil Company has been or is now knowingly engaged in practices which are unlawful is alike untruthful and unjust. . . . There have been no secret rates nor unlawful discrimination in the interest of the Standard Oil Company." of International Law closely and appropriately followed the first annual Peace and Arbitration Congress. The meeting was held at Washington, and was really a continuation of the sessions of the Peace Congress. The subjects for discussion included the development of international law; the second Hague Conference; rights of foreigners in the United States in case of conflict between Federal treaties and State laws; immunity from capture during war of non-offending private property upon the high seas; contraband of war; the transference of prize cases from municipal courts to an international court; and the forcible collection of contract debts. In the discussions the Secretary of State and two exSecretaries of State participated. Mr. Olney was characteristically caustic in his interpretation of the Government's policy regarding Santo Domingan debts and the acquirement of the Panama Canal Zone without compensation to Colombia. In this connection he paid his vigorous respects to the corollaries now derived from the Monroe Doctrine; for instance, if a South American State does not behave itself well (good behavior according to our own standards, of course) it may be coerced by the United States into doing the right thing; if necessary, may have its revenues sequestered and 91792 Mr. collected by the United States. 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 sub ject 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 lamplightA Curious ers, amusing in some of its Strike 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. in good condition. The lamplighter has to provide the oil for his torch, to buy his own matches, to supply his rags for cleaning globes, to put new chimneys in when there are breaks, and to keep the mechanical apparatus of the lamp in good condition. He has to be up very 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 |
