Page images
PDF
EPUB

Helm and Wheel

steering.

On

The origin of this apparent confusion lies in the change from a helm or tiller to a wheel in With a helm, the steersman, when he wished the ship to go to port, put the helm to starboard. When the wheel was substituted for the helm, the wheel was originally made to move in the same direction as the helm, and the old order was naturally retained. Later the wheel on most vessels-especially steam vessels-was reversed, but still the old command was retained. many sailing craft the logical change has already been made; the captain wishing his boat to go to starboard gives the order "starboard," and the wheel is turned to starboard. On the battle-ship, however, observe the mental involutions necessary for the execution of this simple maneuver. The officer, seeing that the ship must go to port (to the left), gives the helmsman the order "starboard" (right). The helmsman, hearing the order "starboard" (right), understands that he must turn his wheel to port (to the left). Both officer and helmsman must translate, the one his observation, the other the command which he receives, into diametrically opposite terms. The officer sees "port" and says "starboard;" the helmsman hears board" and acts "port." For the officer the motion of the ship's head which he desires to bring about is the exact opposite of the order which he gives; for the helmsman the order which he receives is the exact opposite of the movement he is to effect.

Right and Left

[ocr errors]

"star

Now what would happen under the new rule? The officer will see that the ship must swing to the left. He will give the order "left." The wheelsman, hearing the order “left,” will twirl the wheel to the left. The ship's head will turn to the left. There will be no crossing of lines, no translation of terms, no confusion of ideas. From the moment the officer thinks "left" until the ship turns to the left, there will be involved but one idea, one word, one motion-" left." The result will be simplicity in giving and receiving orders, certainty and rapidity in comprehending and executing them. The need for some change is pointed out by the General Board of the Navy in its statement recommending the adoption of the suggestion of RearAdmiral Schroeder. The Board, at whose head is Admiral Dewey, says:

Every watch officer of experience can recall innumerable cases where, especially with new

steersmen, the command to starboard produced first a motion of the wheel to starboard, and then the proper movement in the opposite direction as the man at the wheel remembered his teachings and reversed his first instinctive motion. Because of the many errors made, sometimes by a careless or sleepy steersman, resulting in a hard-over helm the wrong way, came a cardinal rule for the officer of the deck to personally go and see whether his orders with regard to the helm had been carried out.

The arguments presented by the Board in support of its recommendations are weighty. It is suggested, on the other hand, that it will be unfortunate to have a different practice in our navy from that of other navies and that of the merchant marine. But it is very seldom that any change like this is made simultaneously or unanimously. If the change is good-and the experts at the head of our navy believe it is the best way is to make it and hope that our good example will be followed. The contention that it is not good to change anything that has been in existence for centuries is one that makes a stronger appeal to sentiment than to practical common sense. In 1846 the term "port" was substituted for the immemorial word "larboard," and the heavens did not fall nor our navy cease to win victories. The only question should be. Is the change a good one? On this question our naval experts are the best judges.

Mr. Morgan's Will

The last will and testament of the late John Pierpont Morgan is a document of more than ordinary interest. Of the confession of faith with which the will opens we speak elsewhere. After reading the testator's orderly and detailed directions, the impression left on the reader's mind will be, we believe, the same as was left on Mr. Morgan's hearers' minds after his recent testimony before the Pujo Committee at Washington; that is to say, the elements of confidence and character are everywhere emphasized. We find these elements, for instance, in the provisions with regard to property standing in Mr. Morgan's name, but really, in his estimation, belonging to his banking firms, and in the direct disposition of his residuary estate without the creation of a trust-often the practice with regard to great estates. We also find these characteristics in the provisions concerning the art collections. There is, of course, special popular interest in regard to the wonderful collections which for many years Mr. Morgan has been gathering of paintings, miniatures, porcelains, and other works of art.

The ownership of these collections passes to Mr. Morgan's son, but the testator expresses the hope that his son will be able, "in such manner as he shall think best, to make a permanent disposition, or from time to time permanent dispositions, of them, or of such portions of them as he may determine." As Mr. Morgan did not find time to devise the best way to render them "permanently available for the instruction and pleas ure of the American people," he confides to his son the distinction of carrying out the intentions which he cherished. On the human side, the public will be impressed by Mr. Morgan's generous bequests to all of his employees, whether in a domestic or a business capacity, and also with the provision for the continuance of all allowances and payments which he had been in the habit of making to all persons and charities. Thus this will seems alive with the testator's characteristic vitality, energy, far-sightedness, and attention to detail. No such document made public in recent times has, we believe, awakened so much public attention or inspired a more respectful and admiring consideration.

JAPAN, CALIFORNIA, AND THE UNITED STATES

The issue raised between the United States and Japan by the proposed land legislation of California is already serious, and may easily become very serious. There is no present danger of war, but there is serious danger that by a fatuous policy we may make an enemy of a nation of which we might easily make a firm and fast friend, and this without any injury to our National interests or any departure from our wellsettled National policy. The Japanese are a proud, sensitive, and plucky people, with some of the Oriental tendency to seek their national ends by indirection. The Americans are an energetic, pushing, and self-satisfied people, with the provincialism of youth and the tendency to pursue their purpose by a direct path, regardless of the requirements of diplomatic courtesy. In both nations are unprincipled politicians and an unprincipled yellow press. Whoever at such a time attempts to stir up in America hostile feeling to the Japanese is the enemy of his country, and by the sober-minded majority of Americans is regarded as their enemy. We ask our Japanese friends to remember that

demagogues are also to be found in other democratic communities than America, and that it is harder for us to live with them than for the Japanese, who have only to endure the echoes of their demagogism.

The issue is so grave that it deserves the consideration of all thoughtful citizens.

Details of management must be left to the few, but the essential facts in the case and the fundamental principles by which the Nation must be guided ought to be known and understood by all the people. We here attempt to state those facts and principles briefly and clearly.

1. Every nation has a right to determine whom it will receive as settlers and citizens within its territory. For its determination of this question it is not accountable to any other nation. This right is clearly recognized by international law and is freely exercised by all peoples. It underlies the passport system which until recently was in vogue in all European nations and still is maintained by some of them. The people of the United States have a perfect moral and legal right to close their doors to Germans and open them to Italians, or close them to Italians and open them to Germans; to close them to Chinese and open them to Japanese, or close them to Japanese and open them to Chinese. No nation has any right to complain of exclusion. The Japanese have a perfect right to prevent, as they do, Americans from becoming landowners in Japan. If there was any danger that Americans would settle in large numbers in Japan and imperil Japanese industry and Japanese prosperity by their presence, the Japanese would have a perfect right to forbid such American settlements, while leaving their ports open to English, French, or Germans.

2. But we have no right to make a treaty admitting the citizens of a foreign country to our territory and then exclude them. We have no right to make such a treaty and then allow one of the States of the Union to exclude them. We have no right to exercise the right of exclusion in a brutal, brusque, and discourteous manner. If we desire to exercise that right, it is our duty to do so in a courteous manner, without insult, and by amicable agreement if possible.

3. In 1911 the United States made a treaty with Japan which contains (Article I) the following clause:

The citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have liberty to enter,

travel, and reside in the territories of the other; to carry on trade, wholesale and retail; to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses, and shops; to employ agents of their choice, to lease land for residential and commercial purposes, and generally to do any thing incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens or subjects, submitting themselves to the laws and regulations there established.

4. This treaty is the supreme law of the land. The United States Constitution explicitly provides that "all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Senator Root has well said that this clause necessarily implies an expectation that some treaties will be made in contravention of the laws of the States. When such a treaty is made, it is clear that the treaty supersedes and annuls any law of any State which is inconsistent with it.

5. Do the proposed California land laws violate une provisions of this treaty? We do not know, for we do not know what those laws will be when they are finally formulated and passed. We cannot express a judgment of any value respecting a law before it is finally formulated. But if any credence is to be placed on newspaper reports of the purpose of the California legislators, they are endeavoring to frame a law which shall violate the spirit of the treaty, while avoiding express terms which contradict its provisions.

6. Who shall determine whether the land laws of California as finally passed are or are not in conflict with the Japanese treaty? Not the State, but the United States. The right of a State to nullify a Federal statute was claimed by Calhoun; and that right of nullification has been emphatically and at great cost repudiated by the Nation. It cannot now be revived. It is for the people of the Nation, not for the people of California, to determine whether a State law violates an international treaty which by the Constitution is made the supreme law of the land.

7. The President has wisely appealed to the people of California to pass no legislation which contravenes the spirit of the Japanese treaty. Agreement between the Federal and the State authorities is in every way desirable; but if his persuasive argument fails and a law is passed to which the

Japanese take exception, on the ground that it violates the Japanese treaty, the President should take counsel of his advisers on the subject. If, as a result, the Federal Administration comes to the conclusion that the California land law does not violate the treaty, the President should say to the Japanese nation, "We are within our treaty rights." He should protect the people of California with the whole moral and, if necessary, the whole physical power of the Government. If, on the other hand, the Administration comes to the conclusion that the land law does violate the treaty, the President should take instant steps before the Federal courts to have the execution of the land law stayed until the question can be determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, which is the final interpreter of the supreme law of the land, and he should say to the Japanese people, "These land laws will not be executed and the Japanese residents in the United States will not be disturbed under these land laws until this question is settled by the Federal Government." It would have been well if, before the situation reached an acute stage, the President had made it clear both to California and to Japan that he intended to follow this

course.

8. This is the law of the land, and this ought to be the law of the land. In foreign affairs the Nation must act, because foreign Powers cannot and will not be permitted to deal with the separate States, and where the Nation is ultimately responsible it must exclusively and fully meet its responsibility both to foreign nations and to the people of any State in the Union who may feel, as the people of California now feel, that their rights are not sufficiently protected. It was recognition of this fact by our forefathers that led to the substitution of our present National Constitution for the old and loose Articles of Confederation. The people of the United States have the absolute right to determine for themselves who shall and who shall not be admitted within their borders, who may be permanently settled within those borders, who may become citizens of the Nation and with all the privileges and prerogatives of citizenship. Such right cannot

be denied to the people of the United States by the people of any foreign Power; neither can it be denied to the people of the United States by any individual State.

9. If the people of California saw any

objection to this treaty, the time to interpose that objection was when the treaty was before the Senate for ratification. No such objection was interposed; the treaty was ratified unanimously. The Outlook did at the time question the wisdom of the section quoted above, but, as far as we know, The Outlook stood almost alone in so doing-an experience to which it is not altogether unaccustomed. We said: "President Taft believes that a gentleman's agreement,' which now exists in the form of an exchange of notes between the two Governments, sufficiently protects us in the exercise of our right to regulate Japanese immigration, and he therefore urged the ratification of the new treaty. It seems to The Outlook a grave question whether it is wise for either Government concerned to ignore the immigration question." The two Governments did, however, in this treaty ignore the immigration question, and the result has been, as it often is in such cases, that the refusal to meet frankly a question when it arises creates a greater and more serious form of the same question at a later date. If the people of California tardily discover an objection to the treaty which their representatives in the Senate were not far-seeing enough to perceive two years ago, their remedy is not legislation to nullify the treaty; it is an appeal to the Nation to negotiate a new treaty. a treaty which will meet the needs of the people of California, and do it in such manner as will insure reciprocally just treatment between Japan and the United States and give no just cause of offense. If the United States made a mistake in negotiating the treaty of 1911, as The Outlook at the time thought it did, the remedy is not a careless disregard of the treaty, nor a skillfully contrived evasion of it, but a frank recognition of the fact that a mistake has been made, and an honest and courteous endeavor to secure through amicable negotiations a new treaty. If that endeavor should fail, it will then be time enough to abrogate the present treaty. there is no good reason to believe that such an endeavor would fail.

But

10. The Outlook repeats what it said in the discussion of the Japanese immigration question at the time when the present treaty was pending in the United States Senate: "In the interest alike of Japan and America it is eminently desirable, and indeed indispensable, that there shall be no immigration en masse ; that there shall be no attempt on the part of

Japanese cultivators to own land here; that no Japanese workmen or small merchants shall come to ply their trades here." But there is a right way and a wrong way to secure this result. The wrong way is to make a treaty which allows, or seems to allow, such settlement of Japanese in this country, and then allow a State to nullify that treaty by open violation or by skillful evasion. The right way is by diplomatic negotiations to substitute a new treaty which will protect alike the rights of the Japanese to control Japan without interference from America, and the right of Americans to control America without interference from the Japanese.

11. The sum of the whole matter may be stated in a sentence thus: Who may come to America, who may settle in America, who may become citizens of America, who may enter into the trade and commerce and life of America, are questions to be determined for America by America, not by the people of any one State for the Nation. The acceptance of this fundamental principle and its application to the present conditions would secure a settlement alike honorable to Japan, to the State of California, and to the United States.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

By means of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution the people have taken from the Legislatures and into their own hands the right to name the Senators of the United States. By means of laws establishing direct primaries the people are taking out of the hands of party leaders and into their own hands the right to name candidates for elective office.

Evidently the American people are desirous of assuming new responsibilities and exercising new power. This is a very definite tendency. Is it a tendency away from representative government and toward what is called a "pure democracy"? It has sometimes been so considered, especially when taken in connection with the adoption in several States of the initiative and the referendum, by which the people in an election can enact laws. This is a mistake. Whether the initiative and the referendum indicate a tendency away from representative government or not, the direct election of Senators

and the direct nomination of party candidates indicate a tendency quite in the other direction—a tendency toward a more truly representative government.

Representative government has two essential characteristics. The first is that the people govern through representatives. This distinguishes it from pure democracy, where the people govern directly, without the interposition of representatives. The second characteristic is that the people govern through representatives selected by themselves. This distinguishes representative government from autocracy, aristocracy, despotism, boss rule.

Both of these characteristics are essential. Neither can be dispensed with without changing the form of government from one that is representative to one that is something entirely different.

The purpose of the direct primary is to preserve the second characteristic-the selection of representatives by the people. In so far as it accomplishes this purpose, it is, not an attack upon representative government, but an aid in its preservation and perfection.

Anything which tends toward having the representatives of the people selected, not by the people themselves, but by a few individuals, whether experts, high-minded patriots, the best citizens, or otherwise, tends to destroy this characteristic of representative government and hence to turn representative government into something different-something conceivably better, but not representative government.

Wherever the direct primary has been adopted in such a form as to take away from a few individuals the power to name candidates who shall represent the voters of a party and to place that power in the hands of the people of the party, it has made representative government more really representative.

So with the direct election of Senators. Hereafter the Senators elected by popular vote in any one of the forty-eight States will represent that State. The fact that an Iowa Senator is not elected by the Iowa Legislature but by the Iowa people will make him not less but more representative of Iowa. There has been a great deal of confused thinking-or at least confused writing-on this. It has been solemnly said that the new amendment has changed the essential character of the Senate as a body of men representing the States as such, simply because they are to be no longer chosen by the Legis

latures as if the Legislature were the State. Does not the Governor of a State elected by the people of the State represent the State as truly as if he were elected by a Legislature? There is every reason to believe that for the very reason of his popular election he represents the State more truly. The Seventeenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution is a movement, not away from, but toward, representative government.

There is another objection, however, to direct nominations by the party voters which applies equally to the direct election of Sena tors by popular vote. Let us state it as it appears in a recently published editorial article in the New York "Sun," on the primary bill urged by Governor Sulzer and pending in the New York Legislature :

Governor Sulzer's primary bill presents all the customary provisions of this class of legislation. The convention must go; the ballot must be changed in form to the further embarrassment of illiterates and the confusion of all voters; the magic of statutory enactment is to strip power from those who devote their time and talents to politics, and by some mysterious process impose it on those who have hitherto been too lazy, too cranky, or tooreless to put out their hands to grasp it.

This, of course, is fundamental. It is directed against, not some change in the form of representative government, but against representative government itself. It is based on the theory that the most elementary factors in government-the determination of policies and the selection of the men who are to hold places of highest responsibility-are necessarily so complicated and technical that they cannot be intrusted to the people themselves, and should be left to those who devote their time and talents to politics." This is therefore not an argument against direct primaries or direct election of Senators, but against all popular self-government. It is aimed, not against "pure democracy," but against any kind of democracy.

It is true that government in many of the States has been complicated and technical, and that the process of choosing public servants, and especially of choosing party candidates for public office, has been involved in such intricate machinery that the ordinary man has felt himself helpless whenever he has tried to have anything to do with it. Under those circumstances it is not surprising that the whole machinery of government has been left to the care and control of professional politicians. That, of course, is

« PreviousContinue »