Vol. 56 Published Every Saturday July 24, 1897 HE unexpectedly strong disposition of the non-union miners of West Virginia to join in the struggle of the union miners north of the Ohio gained headway steadily last week, and by its close one-third of the mines in West Virginia had been shut down by the strike. Inasmuch as nothing succeeds like success in matters of this kind, it is likely that nearly all the West Virginia miners may soon lay down their picks. Nearly every miner is willing to quit work if every other miner will do the same, for he is thus insured that competitors will not be doing his work. In West Virginia many of the operators made strong appeals to the selfinterest of the men, by offering them exceptionally high wages if they would keep at work, while the northern mines were generally shut down. But sympathy with their fellow workmen and the sense that ultimately the interests of all miners were one, proved to be the controlling consideration with an unexpectedly large number of miners. The operators whose men have gone out may be able to reopen their mines with negro labor, but even the negroes to some extent are governed by what Mr. Carnegie once called the new commandment of trades-unionism: "Thou shalt not steal thy neighbor's job." North of the Ohio the news of the week related chiefly to the efforts of Labor Commissioners and others to secure the assent of 95 per cent. of the operators in the Pittsburg district, to the "uniformity agreement" proposed by President De Armitt, of the New York and Cleveland Gas Coal Company. This agreement stipu-. lated for the abolition of company stores, bi-weekly payment of wages, and other reforms favored by the workmen. Its good faith, however, was impugned by several No. 13 A most interesting debate took place in the Senate last week upon a resolution requesting the President to suspend the proceedings in the courts which have for their object the foreclosure of the Union Pacific mortgages and the sale of the Government's claims. The resolution merely proposed that the proceedings should be suspended until the matter could be investigated, but it was strenuously opposed by Senator Gear, of Iowa, and Senator Thurston, of Nebraska. It will be remembered that when the last Congress refused to pass the Funding bills President Cleveland and Attorney-General Harmon took the position that the Executive might dispose of the Government's interests without consulting Congress. Accordingly an agreement to foreclose the mortgages was entered into with the Reorganization Committee of the Union Pacific which guaranteed a minimum bid of $45,000,000 for the Government's claims of $68,000,000. President Cleveland's legal right to enter into such an agreement was naturally questioned by all Congressmen who believe that public property cannot be disposed of without the consent of Congress, and the wisdom of his bargain was also severely criticized. In the debate last week the wisdom of the bargain was the principal point discussed. Senator Thurston-the former solicitor for the Un on Pacific-insisted that President Cleveland's bargain must be a good one inasmuch as its critics could not find any responsible bidder who would offer as much as $45,000,000 for the Government's interest. This argument, however, did not seem conclusive to the critics of the bargain. They naturally assumed the position that the real value of the property and the amount it would bring at a forced sale in such times as these were very different things. Respecting the value of the Union Pacific the critics of the bargain offered some striking testimony. In the first place they pointed out that the road has to its credit a sinking fund of $17,000,000 in the hands of the Government. As the Reorganization Committee proposes to take this $17,000,000, its bid for the road is really only $28,000,000 instead of $45,000,000. In the next place, the road has vast quantities of unsold land, including coal-mines of great value in Wyoming. The value of the real estate was estimated at $14,000,000. Finally, the net earnings of the road, even during the depression, have been nearly $5,000,000 a year, or 4 per cent. on $120,000,000. Yet the Reorganization Committee proposed to pay for this property only $62,000,000-$34,000,000 for the first mortgage bonds and $28,000,000 to the Government. On this investment of $62,000,000 they plan to issue $100,000,000 of bonds, $75,000,000 of preferred stock and $61,000,000 of common stock or an aggregate capitalization of $236,000,000. To these statements the defenders of the contract made no definite objection, but to the alternative proposition that the Government should pay off the first mortgage bonds and take charge of the roads, they objected most vigorously. Senator Gear, of Iowa, went so far as to say: "I would rather see every dollar the Government has got in this enterprise lost than to see the Government operate that road one hour." In defense of this extreme proposition Senator Gear urged that roads operated by the public were always more costly to the citizens than those operated by private enterprise, and cited statistics about freight rates per ton mile in this country and abroad. The fact that the hauls in this country are indefinitely longer and that it costs little more to make a long haul than a short one he did not refer to. Neither did he refer to the fact that the citizens in Australia and Germany evi dently prefer to have their roads operated by the public, and that the Swiss have just decided to follow their example. The critics of the proposed sale took more moderate ground. They simply asked that the experiment of Government ownership should be tried. The House and Senate Conferees on the Tariff Bill reached an agreement on Saturday last. The chief contention was over the sugar schedule, and a compromise was reached the meaning of which cannot be determined by any one not familiar with all the intricacies of the manufacture of sugar. The fact that the general public cannot tell how much protection the compromise affords to the sugar trust is one of its worst features. Secretary Gage's proposition to levy an internal revenue tax of a cent a pound on the raw sugar imported by the refiners in anticipation of the new schedule seems to have been ignored. On the publication of the Conference report, sugar trust certificates advanced to 144-the highest point ever reached. The new tax on raw hides was reduced by the Conference Committee from the 20 per cent. ad valorem proposed by the Senate to 15 per cent. Cotton ties, cotton bagging, and burlaps, placed on the free list by the Senate, were restored to the dutiable list. So were pictures, statuary, and all works of art. The duty on white pine, which the Senate had reduced from $2 a thous and feet to $1, was restored to the House rate. Inasmuch as a great and necessary part of the pine lumber used in the Northern States comes from Canada, this increase in the tax is likely to mean a corresponding increase in the price of white pine. It may be bitterly fought by Senator Allen, of Nebraska, who will have the sympathy of several Republican Senators from States producing no lumber. The tax is said, however, to mean millions of dollars to the owners of the lumber forests of Wisconsin and Michigan. The wool duties agreed upon by the Conference are substantially those of the House where the House duties were the higher, and those of the Senate where the Senate duties were the higher. The Senate proposition to tax transfers of stocks and bonds has been dropped. The bill now contains no tax distinctively for revenue purposes. The House has agreed to the Conference report by a vote of 189 to 115. Last week a New York journal published the instructions signed and sent by Secretary Sherman to Ambassador Hay, urging on the British Government a settlement of the fur-seal question. It is said that the publication was a premature one, and that it has been objected to by our Special Commissioner, ex-Secretary Foster, as likely unnecessarily to complicate matters. Certainly a few of the phrases in Mr. Sherman's letter are hardly those of diplomatic usage. While we believe the case of the United States to be a strong one, we can hardly impress the British public in its favor by language such as this: "It is not pleasant to have to state that the impartial character which it has been the custom to attribute to the reports of naturalists of high standing has been greatly impaired by the apparent subjection of this (Professor Thompson's) report to the political exigencies of the situation." Such language recalls the Olney-Cleveland letter of December, 1895. Some time ago, President McKinley proposed to the British Government, first, a modus vivendi by which the killing of seals should be suspended for the present season, and second, a joint conference of all the Powers concerned, with a view to the adoption of necessary measures for the preservation of the fur-seals in the North Pacific. We regret to that both say proposals were rejected, and the report that Lord Salisbury has reconsidered his decision as to the conference is now contradicted. We have before commented upon the report of President Jordan, our Commissioner to Behring Sea. The report of Professor Thompson, the British Commissioner, was not made public at the same time with that of Dr. Jordan. Secretary Sherman charges that: It seems to have better suited the purposes of Her Majesty's Government to withhold Professor Thompson's report until an opportunity was af. forded to examine that of Dr. Jordan, and thus enable the former to pass the latter in review, to criticize its statements, and, as far as possible, minimize its conclusions. Never The rejection of the President's proposals was based mainly upon the conclusions in the British report. Professor Thompson thinks that there has been a possible state of equilibrium for the last two years, in the number of seals resorting to the islands, but he concedes a diminution as compared with 1892. On the other hand, Dr. Jordan says that the furseal herd of the Pribilof Islands has decreased to about one-fifth its size in 1872-1874; to somewhat less than half its size in 1890, and that between the seasons of 1895 and 1896 there has been a decrease of about ten per cent. theless, Professor Thompson concedes that "the margin of safety is a narrow one, if it be not already in some measure overstepped. We may hope for a perpetuation of the present numbers; we cannot count upon an increase." Mr. Sherman states that the operations of the pelagic fleet in Behring Sea for the last three years have been as follows: In 1894, 37 vessels and an average of 853 per vessel; in 1895, 59 vessels and an average of 748 per vessel; in 1896, 67 vessels and an average of 440. Hence, in 1896, nearly double the number of vessels were not able to catch as many seals as were taken in 1894, and the catch per vessel fell off nearly one-half. Lord Salisbury himself informs us that the poor catch of 1896 brought many owners of the sealing vessels to the verge of bankruptcy," a fulfilment of the condition of things predicted by our Government-the commercial extermination of the seals. Secretary Sherman also criticizes the British Government for failing to aid effectively in the police patrol of the sea. In 1894, our Government provided twelve vessels for such patrol on its part, the British Government provided one. In 1895, five United States vessels patrolled the area to two British vessels; while one of the latter patrolled for a short time only in Behring Sea and the other took no part whatever in the actual patrol. Owing to the repeated complaints of our Government, an addi tional British cruiser was ordered into Behring Sea during the season of 1896. Again, under Article VI. of the Paris regulations, the use of firearms in Behring Sea was prohibited, and to enforce that prohibition it was agreed between the two governments that vessels might have their arms and ammunition placed under seal. A year later, however, the British Ambassador gave notice that his Government would not renew the arrangement. In 1896 Secretary Olney submitted a proposition to put an end to the controversy by an examination of vessels entering Behring Sea, and an inspection by representative of the United States at British Columbia ports of all skins taken in that sea, to discover whether or not firearms were used, but this proposition was not accepted. In short, in one way and another, the well-meant conclusions of the Paris Tribunal have been brought to naught. It is reported that ex-Secretary Foster has been successful in his mission to Russia; let us hope that he will be equally successful in that to Great Britain. It may be worth while to add the opinion of the Hon. L. H. Davies, the Canadian Minister of Marine, who says that there are insufficient data to justify any change on the part of Great Britain. According to Mr. Davies "the Americans have never accepted the fact that the sealing herd, as a herd, is no more theirs than ours. If the interests of our sealers themselves are to be regarded they cannot stand a further loss of rights." Davies adds: Mr. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has reported favorably the Hawaiian Annexation Treaty. Two SenatorsDaniel, of Virginia, and Turpie, of Indiana-declined to vote upon the report, but no vote was cast against it. Apparently the fact that annexation imposes nothing but burdens upon this country-a sugar tax of $8,000,000 a year, a prospective increase of our navy, an unassimilable alien population to be governed upon unrepublican principles-apparently no one of these burdens nor all of them outweigh the opportunity afforded by annexation to increase our territorial magni tude and assume a more conspicuous rôle in the field of international complications. The best of American traditions expressed in Washington's warning against "entangling alliances," and Jefferson's "passion for peace" which led him to hate diplomacy because it threatened entanglement, seems to have been forgotten, and Senators who declare the Government incompetent to deal with industrial evils at home would empower it to regulate the affairs of the Orient. This alarming disposition to favor a policy of interference in foreign affairs likewise manifested itself last week in the debate on the proposition to increase the allowance for armor. plate on the new cruisers from $300 a ton to $425. The opponents of the increase recalled the frauds exposed in past contracts, and the ability of one of the contracting firms to furnish armor-plate to the Russian Government for $229 a ton. But some of the advocates of a vigorous foreign policy urged that the obvious extortion should be ignored in order that a greater navy might at once be at our command. Senator Hale, of Maine, went so far as to say: "Senators may appeal to the Senate about the rapacity and greed of these companies. I admit it. It is all true. I wish it was not true; but we have something beside that. We have a national honor and a national dignity to maintain." Fortunately, a majority of the Senate and also of the House felt that our National honor and dignity were more endangered by submission to injustice at home than by a smaller fleet abroad, and a clause was adopted requiring that the bids be let at a maximum of $300 a ton, or the Government secure a plant to make its own armor-plate. இ Chicago has just had an instructive experience relating to the “inviolability" of contracts between city governments and corporations obtaining public franchises. A few months ago, the General Electric Company obtained a charter to construct a street railway system, with underground wires. The petition of abutting property owners on which the charter was granted, contained the following clause: "This petition to be void unless the underground conduit system of propulsion is used." |