much less to express an opinion as to the merits of the case. It is quite certain, however, that these charges are serious enough in character to demand thorough investigation in the interest of Admiral Schley's own reputation and in the interest of harmony in the service. If the investigation had taken place a year or more ago there would have been avoided the heated and bitterly personal controversy which has been waged all these months in the public press, and there would have been removed a disagreeable shadow from the renown of one of the greatest of American naval achievements. The Court of Inquiry now to be held will of necessity be final in its conclusions, because the statutory time after alleged misconduct during which a court martial may be held has already expired. The personnel of the court as constituted by Secretary Long's order meets with universal approval. Admiral Dewey will preside, and RearAdmiral Kimberley and Admiral Benham (both men of long experience, fine records, and deeply concerned for the honor of the service) are the other members, and Captain Lemly, the Judge Advocate-General of the Navy, will act as Judge Advocate at the inquiry. Admiral Schley will, of course, be represented by counsel. The "precept" to the Court of Inquiry directs an investigation into all the matters involved in this unhappy controversy, both in general language and also in the specific statement of more than a dozen distinct points, covering the conduct of the "flying squadron" at Cienfuegos; its voyage to Santiago; its departure from Santiago admittedly contrary to orders; the excuse or reason for this relating to the coal supply; the question whether proper efforts were made to destroy the Colon from May 27 to May 31; the propriety of withdrawing the squadron to a distance from Santiago harbor at night; the conduct of the Brooklyn under Schley's immediate command during the engagement of June 3, and particularly her turning, as it is alleged by some, in such a way as to get out of the line of fire and endanger the Texas; the correspondence with Lieutenant Hodgson about the last-named incident in which Admiral Schley is alleged to have striven to falsify the facts, and much else. The people of the country who have not become involved in the

controversy, to which there has been some effort to give a sectional aspect, will demand that the whole story be put before them clearly and intelligently, and that the Court of Inquiry distribute praise and blame fearlessly. Meanwhile newspapers and individuals should refrain from hasty conclusions and from attempting to take into their own hands the duty of weighing evidence and finding a verdict prematurely.

The "Grandfather" Clause Before the Courts

The constitutionality of the Louisiana Suffrage On July 10, David resident of New

Law is to be tested. J. Ryanes, a colored Orleans who cannot comply with the educational or property qualifications of the Louisiana Constitution of 1898, made application to be registered as a voter, and was refused registration. On July 12, Mr. Armand Romaine, a lawyer of New Orleans, acting as Ryanes's attorney, filed suit in the Civil District Court of the parish of New Orleans, praying that a writ of mandamus be issued obliging the registrar to enroll this man. The proceedings preliminary to this case have been under way for some time, and the registrar knew when this man's application was made and refused that the application was made for the purpose of furnishing a base for a suit. The case has been undertaken and will be prosecuted by the Afro-American Council, whose headquarters are in Washington. David J. Ryanes, the man who has been selected as plaintiff, is a man sixty years of age who for the last thirty years has actually exercised his privileges as a

voter.

He was a slave and the son of a slave. He has resided in New Orleans since 1860, in which year he was brought to that city from Tennessee. He can neither read nor write, nor does he pay taxes on $300 worth of property. The contention is made that while on this account he is not allowed to register, a white man in the same condition would be allowed so to do under the so-called "grandfather" clause of the Constitution. The plaintiff has an excellent reputation in New Orleans, has a family, is a hard-working man, and is an elder in good standing in one of the leading colored Methodist churches of the city.

Mr. Armand Romaine, the lawyer who has entered the case, is not a negro. He is a native of New Orleans, a graduate of Tulane University and Law School, and has been in practice in New Orleans for several years. He informed our correspondent that he hoped to have the case brought to trial during the next ten days or two weeks after its entry. As North Carolina has adopted practically the same plan as Louisiana for disfranchising negroes without disfranchising whites possessing no greater qualifications, the result of the present suit will determine the validity of its disfranchisement clause as well as that of Louisiana. The National Constitution, it will be recalled, forbids the disfranchisement of citizens because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The legal defense of the "grandfather" clause in the Louisiana and North Carolina Constitutions is that it does not disfranchise negroes because of their color, but enfranchises whites if their family enjoyed the suffrage before it was given to negroes. Nominally Mr. Ryanes was not disfranchised because of his color, but if the Court finds that in fact he was disfranchised on that account, it must hold that the Fifteenth Amendment to the National Constitution has been violated.

per Family

The already astounding Our Exports $100 balance of trade "in our favor" was increased by another one hundred million dollars during the fiscal year just ended. Our imports were a trifle less than a year ago, or barely eight hundred millions, but our exports rose from fourteen hundred millions to fifteen hundred, and now amount to one hundred dollars for every family in this country. In other words, the "average American family "if such a thing there be sends abroad a hundred dollars' worth of products, pays the freight upon them, and sells them in foreign markets for less than they can be produced for by the "pauper" labor there. And yet we have a tariff to protect American trusts from meeting foreign competition in our own markets, where they would have no ocean freights to pay, while their for eign competitors would be handicapped thereby. Our farmers, it is true, contributed two-thirds of our exports, but the

protected industries of manufacturing, mining, and forestry contributed five hundred million dollars' worth, showing that in every department American producers can gain by free exchange with other countries. The question "What becomes of the balances in our favor?" grows each year more difficult to answer. Last year we sold to other countries seven hundred million dollars' worth of goods more than they sold to us, and yet only eleven millions in gold was shipped us in payment. When we had only a balance of three hundred millions to account for, we used to assume that a third of it went to pay the interest on foreign investments here, another third to pay the expenses of American travelers abroad, and the balance to pay the freight charges on our foreign shipments. When in 1898 the balance "in our favor" rose above five hundred millions, we assumed that nearly half of it went to pay off our indebtedness abroad. But we have now had four years of these enormous balances, and this year's balance is greater than ever before. If we have already paid off so much it is strange that our payments do not decrease. One of our correspondents who studies Wall Street matters closely suggests that we have not been paying off our foreign debt at the rate supposed, and asserts that English holdings of our railroad, manufacturing, mining, and land companies are as great now as ever and are simply bringing a larger return to the foreign investors. If this be true, then English optimists have a right to find comfort in the fact that the balance of trade "against" England is even larger than the balance of trade "in our favor." The fact that she imports eight hundred million dollars' worth of goods more than she exports is evidence of her enormous income from her foreign investments.

miscellaneous literary matter, and not including journals which are in effect gift enterprises or advertising circulars. The new order will also prohibit the return of unsold copies of second-class periodicals at pound rates to news agents or publishers.

A Still Higher Tariff in Germany

The new tariff schedules proposed by the German Ministryand published last week in a pamphlet of one hundred and sixty-seven pages are as extreme in their way as the tariff schedules of Russia or the United States. They differ, however, from the high tariff measures of these two countries in that they are chiefly to protect the farmers at the expense of the cities, instead of aiming chiefly to protect city industries at the expense of the farmers. The heaviest increases made are upon agricultural products, and, since Germany must still import a part of her supplies, their price in Germany is likely to increase almost as much as the tariff is raised. Wheat and rye, for example, have heretofore been taxed about one mark (24 cents) a bushel; hereafter, according to the new schedules, the taxes will range from a minimum of a mark and a half to a maximum of nearly two marks. "The minimum figures," says the despatch, "are to be the lowest admissible in commercial treaties." Inasmuch as wheat and rye are the breadstuffs for nearly the entire population, the new taxes will add nearly one-half to the natural cost of bread to the German workingman. There are indeed increases in the present taxes on imported manufactures-the duties on imported machinery being in some cases more than doubled-but the chief changes made are of the sort that will burden the industrial classes. The result is that public sentiment in the cities is strongly hostile to the new rates. They have also called forth strong protests from the press of St. Petersburg and Vienna, in both of which capitals there is talk of tariff retaliation. Unfortunately such retaliation would be likely to help and not hurt the German interests back of the present measure, as it would give them an excuse for demanding further reprisals, Tariff warfare, like other warfare, tends to promote in other countries the same spirit it represents at home, It has been said of other wars

that there is always folly on one side and almost always folly on both sides. In characterizing tariff wars the word "almost" is hardly essential.

Free Trade with Porto Rico

As anticipated by us last week, President McKinley has issued his proclamation formally announcing the establishment of civil government in Porto Rico, and also proclaiming free trade between the United States and that island. The Outlook was among the journals which criticised President McKinley for silently retracting his message demanding free trade between Porto Rico and the United States and quietly exerting his personal influence in favor of the passage of the Foraker Bill imposing a tariff cn Porto Rican exports and imports. We still think that President McKinley, having previously announced to the country that he was in favor of free trade, should have announced his change of view as publicly, if his view did change. But it must also be said that by his acquiescence he has won a victory over the extreme protection faction in his party which he probably could not have won by directly antagonizing that faction, and has kept his party together and at the same time secured absolute free trade for Porto Rico after a very brief delay. Practically this policy has secured for Porto Rico all the benefits which would have been extended over the island by the doctrine that its purchase made it subject to all the provisions of the Constitution, and at the same time has exempted it from the evils which that doctrine would have imposed by making it subject to an internal revenue taxation which might probably have proved oppressive. Porto Rico is now to all intents and purposes a Territory of the United States, except that it has no delegate in Congress and its inhabitants have no share in the government of the Nation.

that the British wounded were killed on the field by the Boers. At first the War Office denied the story entirely; after wards it was admitted that there might be some truth in it, and finally, when the "Daily Mail" published names, dates, and places, the accuracy of the general statement was admitted by the War Office. One might suppose that the British authorities would not be averse to publicity when the incidents narrated exposed the improper practices and cruelty of the enemy. The trouble, however, seems to have been that the despatch was sent without the consent of Lord Kitchener, and was a violation of the press regulations, which still amount to a severe censorship. The subsequent action of the British war authorities in refusing to allow the "Daily Mail" the usual press facilities extended to other newspapers and in practically boycotting the "Daily Mail" in the distribution of official news at London is in the nature of punishment. It now seems clear, from despatches sent by Lord Kitchener himself, that, while it is true that British wounded were shot and killed at Vlakfontein, it is equally true that nothing in the shape of a general or authorized slaughter of the wounded took place. Indeed, the latest despatches say that the murder was the work of two or three ruffians only, and in the one case in which the murderer has been identified it turned out that he was a German mercenary. Evidence is also sent from South Africa to the effect that at Vlakfontein the Boer officers not only did not order the atrocities, but did their best to prevent them. Rumors continue that Lord Kitchener is to retire from command in South Africa; the repeated rumors that Sir BindonBlood is to succeed him are now followed by equally untrustworthy rumors that Lord Littleton is to assume command.

have held it as an unquestioned fact that infection can and does frequently take place through milk and meat. To protect the public health sweeping and rather arbitrary powers are given to inspectors in England, the United States, and many other countries to test cattle for the disease 2nd to kill the animals when tuberculosis is found. This State supervision has not always been approved by cattle breeders, who insist that the tests are by no means certain, and that they are often not properly indemnified; on the other hand, the experts of our Agricultural Department insist that the tests are absolutely essential for public safety, but admit that the tests will not invariably detect the disease, and that sometimes the test wrongly indicates the presence of tuberculosis when it does not exist. The final test-that is, the killing of the animal-settles the question in most cases, as the slaughter-houses and the meat are subject to Government inspection. The test with live animals consists of the injection of tuberculin, the existence of which is due to Dr. Koch's experiments; a considerable rise of temperature is taken to indicate the presence of the disease. It is evident that if Dr. Koch's thesis propounded last week can be maintained, the matter is of vast importance to cattle-breeders and dealers in meat products, and may produce a revolution in the Governmental oversight, although the necessity of protection against diseased meat would, in any case, still exist. As Dr. Koch was the discoverer of the tubercle bacillus and the originator of a method of treatment which is held by many eminent scientists to be of great value, though as yet within a limited field, his views are of great importance. The conclusion he reaches was largely based on experiments in attempting to transfer the disease from men to animals by inoculating with the bacillus ; the reverse operation is, of course, impossible. Despite Dr. Koch's standing and ability he did not convince the other eminent students of the question at the Congress, such as Lord Lister and Professor McFadyean, the latter of whom read an able paper in opposition; while many scientists in Germany, France, and America have hastened to express themselves as more than doubtful.

The

Congress itself passed a resolution urging that health officers should continue every effort to prevent the spread of tuberculosis through milk and meat, and that, as the doubts concerning human immunity from bovine tuberculosis raised by Dr. Koch were of vital importance to the public health and the agricultural interests of the country, the Government should immediately institute a rigid inquiry into the identity of human and bovine tuberculosis. The most notable point in the discussions of the Congress, apart from Dr. Koch's novel assertion, is found in the emphasis laid on the importance of legislation against expectoration in public and the universal agreement that the human sputum is far the most common method of transmission of disease, hereditary transmission being in the opinion of all the experts either absolutely non-existent or so slight as to be of no practical consequence. It was stated that sixty thousand persons die yearly in Great Britain from tuberculosis, and that nearly a third of all British cattle are in some degree affected by it.

If the interview reported The Fosburg Case with the Chief of Police, of Pittsfield, Mass, is authentic, it ought to be possible to inflict upon him some penalty for his offense. In this interview he is reported to have said that he "never really expected to fasten the crime upon the defendant;" that "when Robert Fosburg was indicted it was for the purpose of showing that Pittsfield was not the home of burglars." To use a criminal court for any other purpose than that of bringing the person guilty of crime to punishment is a real, though it may not be a legal, contempt of court. It can be distinguished from malicious prosecution only because the element of actual malice against the accused is wanting. It certainly should be a sufficient ground for impeachment and removal from office. It is indeed difficult for the readers of the press to understand how the District Attorney ever consented to recommend indictment, or how the Grand Jury ever found one upon the evidence presented in this case. To convict an accused of murder, three things are absolutely necessary: first, proof of the death;

secondly, evidence sufficient to at least indicate a probable motive on the part of the accused; and thirdly, the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis to account for the death. The death of May Fosburg was proved. In order to suggest a motive in the brother for the homicide, the hypothesis of a family quarrel was invented, but no evidence whatever was adduced on the trial to support this hypothesis; and all the circumstantial evidence, as reported, confirmed the statement of the members of the family that the murder was committed by a masked burglar. Nothing can ever compensate the Fosburg family for the cruel injustice of this trial following upon the murder, and adding tragedy to tragedy; nor have we seen anything to palliate the offense of the Chief of Police who was behind the prosecution. The evidence in the case was so clear that the Judge took the matter out of the hands of the jury and directed a verdict for the defendant, and the jury, being afterward informally polled, declared that they would have unanimously rendered such a verdict without hesitation if the Judge had not taken the case out of their hands.

It is inevitable that The Brooklyn Bridge any mishap or threatened danger connected with the Brooklyn Bridge should inspire sensational and excessively excited articles in the daily papers, and that these should arouse serious apprehensions in the minds of the many thousands who use the bridge daily. As we understand the facts, the main structure of the bridge is strong and sound beyond question. The two great towers which support the cables and the four great cables which support the roadway are, we believe, admitted by all engineers to be capable of bearing, not only all the weight which is now placed on them, but much greater weight. This may all be true, however, while it may also be true that the connections between the cables and the trusses which support the roadway may be insufficient for the weight which has been placed upon the bridge. The points where the breaks occurred in the suspension rods connecting the trusses with the cables, and in the steel circular bands by which the rods are fastened to the cables,