Page images
PDF
EPUB

with that the effective government of the former incidentally controls the latter.

Another paragraph of the opinion puts the whole matter cogently and succinctly:

It has been admittedly declared by this Court that as to those subjects which require a general system or uniformity of regulation, the power of Congress is exclusive. In other matters admitting of diversity of treatment, according to the special requirements of local conditions, the States may act within their respective jurisdiction until Congress sees fit to act; and when Congress does act, the exercise of its authority overrides all conflicting State legislation.

The principle laid down by the Court is clear. In whatever relates to inter-State commerce Congress is supreme. This is true even in cases in which intra-State commerce is affected by the action of Congress. With this qualification the State is supreme in whatever relates to intra-State commerce. In those subjects where inter-State and intraState commerce are interwoven the State may act until Congress decides to act. If Congress does act, its action supersedes all conflicting State legislation. Of the necessity for Federal action Congress is the judge.

The decision has been claimed on the one hand as a victory for the State and on the other as a victory for the railways. It is in reality a victory for both, and for the Federal Government as well.

For the State it establishes the right of control over all exclusively intra-State transportation, and of all transportation, however mixed in character, if Congress has not assumed the control. For the Nation it establishes the right of supreme control over inter-State transportation even when intra-State commerce is interwoven with it. For the railways it gives the assurance that they may be freed by Congressional action from State interference with any commerce not exclusively intra-State in character.

The Chandler-Dunbar decision clears up an equally cloudy situation in relation to the development of water powers. It establishes the complete authority of the Federal Government over water power developed or capable of development on navigable streams. Supreme Court has unequivocally declared:

The

1. That in the regulation of navigation— and to regulate means to develop—the United States is a single Government, and as to that governmental function there are no States.

2. Where, when, and how such improvements in navigation are to be made is a legisla tive question for Congressional determination.

3. Such improvement may oe furthered by the utilization of the power inherent in navigable streams to the extent of making commercial use of such power over and above the needs of navigation. This power belongs to all the people, and not to the chance owner of the contiguous land.

This decision is of no less vital importance to the progress of our National development than that in the Minnesota rate cases. The water power inherent in the watercourses of the country is a great National asset. With the steady diminishing of the world s coal supply, and with the growing availability of electric energy derived from water power its value as a National asset is constantly increas ing. It is an asset which belongs to all the people and which should be developed for the benefit of all the people.

The Supreme Court has set the seal of its approval upon this principle. It has said that the water powers latent in navigable streams are a National possession, to be regulated, controlled, and developed under the direction of Congress and in its discretion.

A Federal policy of regulation of water power development is essential to our National development. Opposition to the adoption of such a policy by the National Government can no longer shelter itself behind Constitutional doubts. The issue can now be squarely joined between those who advocate development and regulation in the interest of the public welfare and those who favor development for the exclusive profit of private interests combined with no regulation. That the Nation has the power, and hence the responsibility, of regulating any future development of water power on navigable streams in the public interest is no longer open to question.

These two decisions of the Supreme Court will be historic because they have made it clear, in the one case, that there is in law no borderland where neither the Federal authority nor the State authority can be exercised, that where the authority of the Nation has not been exercised the authority of the State obtains, and that when there is any doubt as to whether the one power or the other has been exercised it should be resolved in favor of the Nation; and, in the second case, that in those matters which clearly concern the Nation as a whole, the power of the Federal authority is supreme and inclusive.

1

HALT!

America had a treaty with Russia. The two countries disagreed in their interpretation of their respective rights and duties under that treaty. America, instead of proposing to Russia to submit the interpretation of the treaty to arbitration, gave Russia notice that we annulled the treaty. It has done what it could to weaken the old ties of friendship between these two nations.

America had a treaty with Japan. Japan believed that under that treaty the Japanese had a right to occupy agricultural possessions in the United States. Without waiting for conference with Japan and an endeavor to come to an agreement as to the rights of the Japanese under that treaty, California denied to Japan the rights which she supposed she possessed. America has thus done what it can to weaken the old-time friendship between Japan and America.

America had a treaty with England respecting the right to use the Panama Canal. America believed that under that treaty she had a right to exempt coastwise vessels from tolls. England believed that America had no such right. Instead of submitting this question of treaty interpretation to arbitration, Senators now propose to refuse to continue the treaty of arbitration. If America does refuse to continue that treaty, or, continuing the treaty, does refuse to arbitrate the Panama Canal question, it will do what it can to weaken the friendship between America and England.

America has intimate trade relations with Germany, perhaps more intimate than with any other nation except Great Britain. It is proposing to pass a tariff measure which Germans resent because they think it denies to them privileges of trade to which they are entitled, and they propose to express that resentment by legislation aimed at American interests. Thus America is doing what it can to provoke trade hostility between America and Germany.

Thus, by our careless, or our too expeditious, or our too inconsiderate action we have chilled the friendship of four great nations. We had a right to annul the treaty with Russia; we have a right to determine whom we will receive as residents within our borders; in The Outlook's opinion, we have a right to remit Panama tolls of coastwise vessels; and we do not question the right of America to pass such tariff measure as Americans think is for their interests.

But no nation is so strong that it can afford to disregard the interests or feelings or even the prejudices of its neighbors, and carelessly, ignorantly, and inconsiderately blunder into action which lessens their friendship if it does not arouse their hostility. It is time that the American people called a halt to their legislators, State and National.

WILLIAM II

A committee of the Norwegian Storthing, or Parliament, awards the Nobel peace prize. The prize is awarded at the end of each year. Last year the committee announced that it was unable to discover a person who, within the preceding twelve months, had "worked most or best for the fraternization of nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, or the calling or propagation of peace congresses." Had The Outlook been the Storthing it would have discharged this committee and appointed a new one, and it would have directed the Norwegians' gaze across the strait which separates Norway from Germany, and to the figure of one whose services for the fraternization of nations" during 1912 had been of a high character-namely, the German Emperor.

At the beginning of that year William II found himself face to face with a war party. The petty jealousies and the larger envies of many years among the Germans had come to a head in their irritation at England's "interference" with Germany's ambitions in Morocco. The apparent lack of preparation on England's part-in our opinion, more apparent than real-gave to the bellicose Germans the chance to cry, "Now or never." The Outlook thought then and thinks now that England's "interference" concerning Morocco formed no sufficient cause for war. When this was expressed, the German chauvinists replied: "Never mind, if we cannot take the occasion we can make the occasion."

On this, those of the English who were timid had an immediate vision of the strongest army in Europe landing at Dover, and of German air-ships flying over the British Isles. There were unusual drills of volunteer organizations in the country, and patriotic plays in London called for loud applause. All this,

of course, only added fuel to the German flame.

Now an armed conflict between England and Germany would be, we are convinced,

supremely silly. Whatever trivial causes of difference there may be, England and Germany have, we are sure, no essential reason for a quarrel. There is rivalry between them, it is true, and increasingly keen rivalry. But it is found in the peaceful fields of trade and transportation. English residents in India and South Africa now buy goods in German rather than in English shops, and Americans going to Europe often take German rather than English ships. But in the field of politics there is, so it seems to us, nothing which may not be fairly adjusted.

There is one man in Germany who sees this clearly-the Kaiser. He had his hands full in trying to stem the war tide and in cooling the desire of those inflamed by the consciousness that Germany had emerged into the position of the most powerful nation on the European continent. They could not understand how a ruler who had insisted in maintaining his army at a high pitch of excellence and in increasing his navy from its former position to that of one second only to the navy of Great Britain could resist what seemed an inviting opportunity to settle once and for all the leadership of Europe.

The trouble with these persons was that they had made a mistake about the leadership. As we have seen in trade and transportation, so in political influence, Germany had attained a position of leadership second to none. Time was when the voice of the English sovereign might have been the most powerful in the councils of Europe. But that time has passed. To the present Emperor, we believe, more than to any other man, is due Germany's advance. Little by little, now by statements through his cautious Chancellor and now by a timely co-operation with the British Foreign Minister, William II put forth arguments which finally found lodgment in the minds of his subjects. The end of the year 1912 saw, therefore, an entirely different temper on the part of the German war party from that which had characterized it at the beginning of the year. The result was not only the avoidance of any outbreak between Germans and Britons, but the recognition of the fact that this peace could not have been kept without the Kaiser's guidance.

At the close of the year a new task met William II. A war broke out in the Balkan Peninsula which gave to Austria, Germany's ally, such unrest that the war party there as with difficulty restrained from direct rmed interposition. This would probably

[blocks in formation]

For on

This crowns the Kaiser's labors. the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession, which the Germans are now celebrating, they may recall that, coming to the throne with the name of "War Lord," he has given to the Fatherland a quarter-century of peace.

One reason why Germany has had peace is because she has been prepared for war. Possibly the Norwegians did not wish to give the Nobel peace prize to the Emperor because he had done no work in the direction of the abolition or reduction of standing armies." As a matter of fact, however, the Kaiser's enthusiasm for the forces of war has no antagonism with his desire for peace.

With a consecration to the principle of peace, we in America shall have peace in proportion as we are prepared for war. Those who believe in our need for a strong army and navy are among the most forceful advocates of peace. We in America may well heed the example of the German Emperor.

THE REAL ISSUE IN THE

EPISCOPAL CHURCH

The question of a change of name is being hotly debated in Episcopal circles. It will probably be the livest topic for discussion in the General Convention to be held next autumn. The present name is "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America." To this the agitators for a change present three principal objections :

It is too long and complex.

It is misleading: the term Protestant suggests that the Episcopal Church was born in the Reformation and was organized and is maintained to protest against the Roman Catholic Church.

It is sectarian: Protestant Episcopal suggests a church characterized by a peculiar form of doctrine and a peculiar form of church government, and a church so characterized is necessarily a sectarian church.

Four names have been proposed as substitutes for the present name :

The American Church.
The American Catholic Church.
The Holy Catholic Church.
The Episcopal Church.

To each of these names there are serious objections.

The first name is not true. The Episcopal

1

Church is not "The American Church." To be entitled to that name it should either be the oldest church in America, or the most democratic church in America, or the largest church in America. And it is neither the oldest, nor the most democratic, nor the largest. The assumption of that name would be resented by every other Church in the land, and would effectually block the way to Church unity.

[ocr errors]

The American Catholic Church " and "The Holy Catholic Church" are objectionable because they both assume a name by which another branch of the Christian Church is universally known. It would serve equally as an obstacle to union with other Protestant Churches, who would object to the doctrinal implications of the term Catholic, and to union with the Roman Catholic Church, which does not concede that the Episcopal Church is a branch of the Holy Catholic Church

It is also objectionable becauses it assumes that one ecclesiastical organization can be the Holy Catholic Church to which all Christians owe allegiance. No church can make itself the catholic Church by simply calling itself Catholic.

[ocr errors]

To the title The Episcopal Church" there is less objection. This is the name by which it is popularly known. Its adoption would involve a real change of official title, but not a real change in popular title. Three years ago it came very near adoption by the Episcopal General Convention. The chief objection to it is that it would be generally regarded as a public disavowal of Protestant principles and Protestant sympathies.

These objections, pro and con, appear to us to be mainly a veil to cover the real issue. Names are symbols. And the real issue which the Episcopal Church confronts to-day is older than Christianity. It is the issue between those who hold the regal and others who hold the paternal conception of the Deity. There are two conceptions of the Church which correspond to these conceptions of the Deity.

According to the first conception, God is a King. He can be approached only by the method and through the ministers he has appointed. His Son, Jesus Christ, constituted apostles, to whom he gave power to forgive sins. He authorized them to confer in turn that power on their successors. Thus a patent of spiritual nobility has been conferred

on a long line of divinely appointed priests. They are the true mediators between God and men. In the mass they offer a perpetually recurring sacrifice for sins. Only as one avails himself of this sacrifice offered for him by the priest, and receives from God through the priest the absolution and remission of his sins, has he any assurance of divine forgiveness. Only these priests and those authorized by them have any right to proclaim the truths of divine life to ignorant and sinful men. Not to accept the provision thus offered is to be without the grace of God; not to belong to the Church thus constituted is to be a schismatic and disloyal to the King and to his Son, the Master and Founder of the Church.

According to the other conception, God is the All-Father; all men are his offspring ; no mediator between him and his children and no special method of approach are required. The way is open for any child. Jesus Christ did not constitute any organization, or give to his apostles any peculiar power to forgive sins, or confer on them any authority to appoint successors. Moses, on Mount Sinai, told the children of Israel that if they would accept Jehovah as their God and keep his commandments, they should themselves be priests. It is still true that whoever seeks the companionship of God by obedience to his will becomes by that obedience a friend and needs no other mediator. Jesus told his disciples that whoever entered into the fold by the door becomes a shepherd of the sheep, and John declared that whoever heareth the Gospel invitation may repeat it to others. No other appointment to preach the Gospel than this is required. Paul received no apostolic ordination, and Paul was an apostle. Dwight L. Moody was never ordained, and Dwight L. Moody's success as a preacher was the all-sufficient certificate of his divine appointment to the ministry. The Lord's Supper is a memorial supper, not a sacrifice. The Gospel knows no other sacrifice than self-sacrifice in love and for love's sake.

The first of these conceptions is popularly known by the name Catholic; the second of these conceptions is popularly known by the name Protestant. At present both conceptions live together in the Episcopal Church. The abolition of the word Protestant and the substitution of the word Catholic in the title of that Church would mean, and by the world would be taken to mean, that the

Church has rejected the paternal conception of God and substituted the regal conception of God; that it ceases to stand for the Protestant doctrine of man's direct and immediate approach to his Father, and has put in its place the doctrine of a separation between man and his King, which necessitates the mediation of a specially authorized priesthood, a specially constituted Church, and a continuously repeated sacrifice for sin.

This is the real issue in the Episcopal Church as we think it will generally be understood by the great body of thoughtful readers outside that communion. The position of The Outlook on that issue needs no defining here.1 回

THE NEW EAST

While diplomacy, more or less selfish and therefore short-sighted, is striving to adjust relations between the so-called Great Powers in the West and the Rising Powers in the East, and China is enduring the birth-pangs of a nation, and the whole East is restless with a new consciousness of the possibilities of future growth and power, there are great unifying forces at work of which the newspapers take small account, but which have immense significance for both hemispheres. An Englishman long resident in China, after describing minutely the conditions in the section of the country in which he lived, said to an American who was his deeply interested listener: "You probably see the large situation more clearly than I do, and your judgment of the outcome of the struggle is probably sounder than mine. We who live here are so shut in by the details of the movement that we cannot see its real direction; we are too near to get a broad view of what is happening."

It is quite certain that if one is to understand what is going on in the Far East to-day he must have both knowledge and vision; he must know the facts, but he must also use the imagination in interpreting them. Looked at close at hand and seen in detail day by day the East seems full of disorder and swept by conflicting currents; but these disturbances are incidental to the awakening of its dormant energies; they are not the

The student who wishes to make a careful study of this question, including the historical meanings of the words Catholic and Protestant, and the nature and development of the doctrinal differences between the Catholic and the Protestant bodies and beliefs, will find material for such study in "Catholic Principles and the Change of Name," by the Rev. Randolph H. McKim, D.D., of Washington, D. C. E. P. Dutton & Co., New York.

signs of approaching anarchy, but of reorganization, of liberation of unused powers.

There are strongly marked currents moving through this restless sea of human life that was long quiescent; there are powerful general tendencies behind the disorder, and there is also a spiritual force which has immense potentiality, and in the East of to-day it is the potential which is the dominant factor. No man of vision can see the East of to-day without seeing the East of to-morrow. The Old East has become the Young East, with possibilities of develop ment as rich and as varied as those of the farthest West; and in youth it is not what has been attained that holds the interest, but what lies within reach of the unspent ardor, the unused vitality. The West is thinking and talking about the Old East, and there is no longer an Old East; there is a New East, not yet fully aware of its power, but rapidly coming to a knowledge of its resources for good and evil.

In China there may be a period of disorder; there may even be another revolution; it may be that an era of anarchy will set in. No man can foresee the events of the near future; but of the outcome no one who knows the resources of the country or the fundamental qualities of the Chinese character can be in doubt. A people cannot change its social habits and political institutions over night, so to speak, without disturbance of long-established values. outbreaks of distrust, and panics, but a capable people, having slowly or suddenly become aware of powers which it has not used, will certainly learn how to use them, no matter how painful the education may be. Wise friends are not misled by the turbulence of the "storm and stress" period in the lives of nations any more than wise parents are heartbroken by that ebullition of wild spirits which is often the characteristic of youth when it begins to feel the powerful impulses of manhood but has not yet learned its selfcontrol.

The sooner the West recognizes that a new day has dawned in the East the brighter will be the prospects of peace in the twentieth century. The West has greatly aided the East during the period when it needed guardianship; and there are Oriental countries which still need the practical guidance of the West; but the age of exploitation has passed away never to return. The West is not only largely ignorant of the East, but betrays great

« PreviousContinue »