those voiced by ex-Senator Edmunds. A leading lawyer of the Northwest, Mr. Brown is a statesman of the first class. Pointedly is indicated that here to-day is an actual revolution against organized government and against all institutions which this government was organized to safeguard, and particularly against the right of private property, which is the basis of every industrial enterprise, the source and safeguard of individual incentive, thrift and activity, and of their fruits. Socialism means an elimination of the individual and of every quality and characteristic which makes the man something different from simply a man.

Mr. Brown, in citing Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. reports I, 17-18, says:

One form of government is better than another in precisely that degree in which it insures its own efficiency and stability from internal disruption. It is efficient in the same degree that at the same time it treats all men equal, it gives to each man equal rights and opportunity for development and protects each and all in the fruits of individual effort and thrift. Our government is based upon a theory the very opposite of that which is the basis of Socialism. The basic theory of our government recognizes individual property rights and the right of contract, which rights are the basis of private industrial enterprises, and safeguards the maintenance of these rights by fundamental law controlling upon the law-making power of the States and Nation.

Is it true that Socialism to-day in this country is teaching that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of these United States were instruments deliberately concocted whereby fraud, robbery and oppression might be perpetrated? Undoubtedly the government is pictured as one of injustice, wicked in its administration and promises for the future. This is all untrue and used only for argument's sake. It is Bolshevikism in the open.

We have under the disguise of party label too many men-leaders, if you please—in the Democratic party, who are forcing us toward a sea of anarchy. The Ship of State cannot sail these waters with any safety. The practical, conservative citizen knows this to be the truth. Mr. Brown further on says:

Senator Owen of Oklahoma, another Socialist in disguise, chafes at the restraint of all constitutional checks and limitations and would turn over to the legislative departments of the government the exclusive power and authority finally to decide as to the validity of their own enactments. Less than a year ago he introduced and advocated the passage of an amendment to a certain act of Congress providing:

Any executive or judicial officer who, in his official capacity,

denies the constitutionality of this act shall ipso facto vacate his office. No judge of an inferior Federal court shall permit the question of the constitutionality of this act to be raised in the court over which he presides, and the United States Supreme Court shall have no appellate power to pass upon such question.

So much for theory and propaganda. Now, what is Socialism in practice? We don't have to seek out some secluded community, playing, as it were, a little game of Socialist theory. The practical workings of Socialism are already manifest throughout this country. It has at times held, and now holds, actual control of municipal governments and has for more than two years had within its grasp the entire governmental control of the great State of North Dakota. Its representatives sit in the halls of the Congress, in State legislatures, and in aldermanic councils. Socialist legislation has in many cases been enacted and enforced, through Socialist influence, over constituencies which would disavow the name of Socialist.

The unrest of European states is spreading to America. It is a germ which must be killed. In the United States can be found no place for Socialistic doctrine, which is an imminent menace and which has for its ultimate goal revolution by violence. There should not be grafted into our existence such measures as the judicial recall, State insurance, statutory minimum wage, the single tax, or any of the hundred and one measures which threaten the very existence of our industries, of State, and of Nation. These should be safeguarded. If the Democratic party fails to do it, then the Republican party will come into power and will undertake its accomplishment.

We are opposed to a League of Nations. It is un-American and means that the economic and military forces of the United States shall be used to preserve the peace of all Europe. If the armies of the United States are to be used to police Serbia, Bulgaria, Italy and Russia, if our navy is to be called upon to protect Havre, Liverpool and Bremen, then a new interpretation is found for the doctrine of Washington, Madison, Lincoln and Cleveland.

We should stand aloof from these entanglements.

The people

of North America have no more business guaranteeing the political independence and territorial integrity of small European or African states than President Wilson would have in trying to separate two or more thugs who were quarreling among themselves on the streets of Paris during his stay at the Peace Conference.

Is it not recognized that European nations have important interests which are generally adverse to ours?

That eight nations are our debtors and we the creditor of all?

One creditor in the power of eight debtors!

Can we afford to bind ourselves to accept the decision of the powers of Europe and Asia in matters which relate to Mexico and the countries which surround and control our Canal Zone-and thus, in effect, to surrender the Monroe Doctrine?

Are we willing to bind ourselves to stop doing business at the command of the powers of Europe and Asia with any nation that those powers may determine to punish, even if it be against our will and interests

If the United States is to become an agent of England-to do the bidding of its King or Premier in the financing of remote Asiatic or African territory or in giving to the Powers the right to direct our actions even to the non-protection of our Southern border and the Canal Zone, then we enter here and now our earnest protest.

The Administration has no right to bind our people—our children -and their children. We have too great faith in the ultimate destiny of this country-too great respect for the intelligence of our citizens; too great belief in the loyalty of true American manhood to think that our people will stand for placing this government under an international protectorate.

America-right or wrong-American laws administered by a Chief Magistrate who is free from foreign influences, whether those be of racial or religious heritage.

Is that man McAdoo, Reed, Clark, Lodge, Borah, Poindexter or Wm. Howard Taft?

We are of the opinion that long before a quarter century shall have passed the theory of a League of Nations will have been discarded.

We look to see, when a readjustment of affairs is completed, in a few years at most a binding treaty in force between the United States, France, Germany and Ireland. A League of Nations. would be farcial in the extreme with Egypt, India and Ireland as vassals subservient to English rule.

In the conomic and trade relations of the world this combination of peoples seems to us desirable and necessary. With no claim to prophetic vision, we foresee that the kingdoms now existent will force an issue not to be denied.

Autocracy has gone when the last relic of shaking thrones and crumbling monarchies shall have disappeared; when the last vestige of czarism as exemplified by figure-head power shall have ceased to ex

ist; when the fact that a son born of a claimed royal ancestor must by virtue of such birth become a ruler shall be disowned by all men of sense imbued with the spirit of freedom and fair play. Then, and not until then, can the American people stand for the offensive and defensive alliance which President Wilson is now such an earnest advocate of.

If the United States were situated as the Entente governments in Europe are situated, the nobody-home condition in Washington at this particular juncture would be a matter for very serious alarm. And even as matters stand, with the nation fundamentally sound and more than any other country immunized to the ravages of the bolshevist germ, the practical desertion of the national capital by the men in charge of the country is anything but gratifying.

The actual situation in Washington is really extraordinary. It would be scouted as outside the reasonable probabilities if it were outlined hypothetically.

On a recent date the President of the country, the Vice President, and the Secretaries of State, War, the Navy, the Interior, Commerce and Labor were all away from the capital, the Congress, of course, being scattered to the four quarters of the country. The government was being run by Private Secretary Tumulty, who has been left in the White House to take care of the furnaces and the cat, and by Solicitor Frank Polk, who is looking after the routine in the State Department. These two were being assised by Postmaster General Burleson, who probably was too busy throttling the Postal Telegraph Company to take a vacation; by Secretary Houston of the Department of Agriculture, and by the two debutantes of the Cabinet, Attorney General Palmer and Secretary of the Treasury Carter Glass, the latter, however, being in the throes of preparation for a Western trip. As to the whereabouts of the absentees, the President and Mr. Lansing were, of course, in Europe; Daniels was on his way there, Baker was West before following his confrere of the Navy Department overseas, Wilson was browsing in New Jersey, Redfield was in the Middle West making speeches, the Vice President was in Arizona. This seems to be quite "normal" for the present spring season in Washington.

The situation is far from being what it ought to be. In these times, no matter how steady may be the economic and social foundations of a nation, its government machinery should be kept carefully and fully

manned and well oiled. Every precaution should be taken to guard against slip or accident. Possibly Mr. Wilson cannot come home from Europe just now. He has involved himself so deeply in Peace Conference matters that he is practically incapacitated, as far as first-hand superintendence of the business of the executive department is concerned. Until he can disentangle himself, the work of the Presidency must remain a side issue with him. The Secretary of State is quite properly in Paris. But the other members of the Cabinet should be in Washington at their desks, carefully watching every detail of the work for which they are responsible to the nation.

But why should we worry. Postmaster Janvier of New Orleans has gone to the nation's capital to tell the remnants what should be done and incidentally to explain, we assume, what needs explaining why the Crescent City postoffice is not all it should be. With Janvier in Washington, President Wilson need not fret.

Congress ought to be in session. It should be where it can deal quickly with any sudden national emergency. We are even inclined to the opinion that failing a summons from the President, the members of the National Legislature might do well to assemble of their own volition, organize and proceed to do business. Such an action would be without precedent, but there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding it, and if Congress were to take such action, the country would unquestionably approve and support it.

Among the bills recently signed by the President is one which has often been commended and which the American Bar Association has been urging upon Congress for eight years. It enacts for the Federal courts that "in any case, civil or criminal, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the court, without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties." This rule was prescribed by the Supreme Court for practice in courts of equity as long ago as 1912. It is the last of a series of improvements which the association has recommended and which have been enacted.

Among the most important of these are the acts providing that equitable defenses may be interposed in action at law without the necessity of a separate action; that if a mistake has been made in bringing a suit at law which should have been equity, or vice versa, the suit shall not be dismissed, but shall be prosecuted by proper amendment; that