"arsonettes" has been even more inflamed by the finding of a clockwork explosive machine in St. Paul's Cathedral near the Bishop's Throne, and by new cases of arson and other outrageous acts. Whether ignorance or intention made the St. Paul's bomb fail to explode, the act was one of vandalism, desecration, and reckless disregard of human and national rights.

The Love Letters of

the Brownings.

To pay thirty-two thousand dollars for a package of some one else's love letters may seem, to the practical mind, rather an extravagant way of spending money. When, however, that package contains five hundred letters between a man and a woman each equally great as both poet and lover, all cause for surprise vanishes. The recent sale in London of the letters of Robert and Elizabeth Barrett Browning calls forth this comment. The widespread interest in these letters was not, of course, dependent upon any transitory curiosity as to what they contained; for they have been accessible in book form for some fourteen years. Rather their appeal lay in their intrinsic literary and spiritual significance. It is too late now to discuss the propriety of their publication— Robert Browning himself left no directions to guide his executors. But it is never too late to say that the world has seldom witnessed a more justifiable violation of personal privacy. Both literature and life were enriched when the love story of the Brownings became the common property of all.

When these letters were first published, The Outlook said: "Students of psychology will find in these letters interesting material for a study of life; students of poetry will find in them some side-lights thrown not so much on the methods of producing poetry as on the spirit out of which poetry comes forth; true lovers will delight in them as a manifestation of true love-a manifestation such as history has never and fiction has rarely if ever paralleled." Was it wrong for the world to grasp at the inspiration which these letters contained? We do not believe so.

In

House the leader was a Tammany man. some respects the character of the Legislature was even lower than the New York average, which is none too high. Though nothing which occurred during the session of the Legislature involved such a scandal as that which has too often made the New York Legislature a reproach to the State, there was evidence enough of a low standard of intelligence and public morals. In spite of all this, the Legislature which has just adjourned has passed a body of laws affecting conditions of life and labor that are probably in advance of any similar legislation in any State of the Union. These laws received the support of the legislators irrespective of party. In fact, they had a non-partisan origin. They were formulated by the Factory Investigating Commission which was appointed after the Asch factory fire with its horrifying loss of life. They would, of course, never have been passed if it had not been for the uprising last yearan uprising which created in three months a new party devoted to progressive principles and which put the control of the victorious party into the hands of those who constitute its progressive wing. Politicians are sensitive to such evidence of public determination. Even the most hardened machine man cannot ignore such a movement as that.

Thus

it happened that the same election which put Tammany in control of the Legislature made possible the enactment of these progressive laws.

They are about a score in number. They not only regulate such matters as child labor, labor in tenement-houses, labor of women, conditions of health in the factories and in the houses of employees, but they put the whole matter of the regulation of labor conditions upon a basis of efficiency. The principle involved in these laws is that of establishing general standards which are to be applied in every particular case by an administrative authority. A parallel may be found in laws which establish reasonable railway rates and then leave to a railway commission the determination of what rates are reasonable. In this instance the administrative body consists of the State Commissioner of Labor and a newly created Industrial Board of which the Commissioner is to be chairman. This principle is a very sound one. Of course the efficiency of these laws will depend upon the campetency of the administrative officials. Governor Sulzer has shown his interest in making these laws effective by sending in the appoint

ment of John Mitchell as Commissioner of Labor-an appointment rejected by the State Senate. Mr. Mitchell is so well known as a high type of labor leader that the rejection of his appointment can be due only to unworthy political considerations. As important as the passage of these laws to be administered is the selection of the right kind of administrators who will be charged with putting the laws into practice.

Though they allowed such laws as these to pass, and though they enacted a workmen's compensation law which in spite of obvious defects is better than no such law at all, the Tammany members of the Legislature, with the aid and comfort of Republican machine leaders, resisted effectively the enactment of proper primary measures. It is in the primary that the boss wields his power. If he can nominate the candidates for office, he is not greatly concerned as to who elects them. In New York State the primary laws have been, very bad. They have made the little boss a power in the little community and the big boss a power in the big community, and both little and big bosses efficient servants of those who want to use the machinery of government for getting and keeping special and unearned privileges. Governor Hughes saw this, made his fight, and was beaten; renewed his fight and then, before it was finished, retired to become a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In the campaign which defeated Mr. Stimson and elected Mr. Dix many of those who include themselves among the best element " found after election that they had been used by the bosses to defeat primary reform. Under the guise of establishing something that was called direct primaries, the Democratic machine, under the adroit leadership of Tammany, enacted a measure which made the conditions, if pos sible, even worse. The bosses had been too adroit. They had done the one thing that made voters of all parties realize that they had common cause against the boss. Governor Sulzer saw the significance of the resulting situation, and made it perfectly clear that he was going to carry on a fight against boss control of the primary. He summoned to his aid men of all parties, and met with a response that showed that he had read correctly the signs of the times. He had a bill drafted and had it submitted to the Legis

The Direct Primary Movement in New York

lature. With cynical disregard of public opinion, the Legislature defeated Governor Sulzer's bill and in its place passed one that was an insult to the intelligence of the New York electorate. This bill the Governor vetoed, with a message that was a challenge to his opponents.

Governor Sulzer's Primary Campaign

Now that the Legislature has adjourned, Governor Sulzer has again called together men of the Democratic, the Republican, and the Progressive parties and has appointed committees to carry on a campaign throughout the State in anticipation of the reassembling of the Legislature for the purpose of passing a suitable primary law. The people who form these committees are behind the Governor's bill. It is a bill which would put into. operation a real direct primary. The points on which we believe it might be amended with advantage we shall not here discuss, because they are subordinate to the main purpose of the measure. That purpose is altogether in the interests of the people of the State. The fact that Governor Sulzer has succeeded in getting together people of all parties in this movement for direct primaries shows the advance that the movement itself has made since Governor Hughes made an appeal to the people on behalf of what was a wing of one party. The coming together of progressives of all parties is, moreover, a slight indication that the alignment of parties in the near future may result in a Progressive and Conservative division.

President Wilson in

New Jersey

回

President Wilson lately affairs dropped the

of the Nation to resume his activities in the public affairs of New Jersey. He journeyed from Washington, the capital of the Nation, to Trenton, the capital of the State, to urge, in conference and in public address, the Democratic legislators and leaders to put through legislation which he had advocated as Governor for the change of the present system in selecting juries. The change he advocated has been opposed by certain men identified with machine politics in the Democratic party of the State. The President's journey to Trenton was therefore interpreted as the resumption of the conflict which he had with these same men while he was Governor. Whatever

may be thought of the President's action, it evinced moral independence and persistence. The issue which took him to Trenton is not one which has greatly stirred the people of the State. Perhaps it ought to have done so. Certainly it is not unimportant that the juries which form one of the essential parts of our courts should be freed altogether from partisan political influence. As a matter of fact, however, this issue has not kept the people of New Jersey aroused; it has not been predominant in discussion among citizens. It is a serious matter for the President of the United States to engage actively in a conflict that pertains purely to State questions, even though they are questions that concern his own State. From the time that he becomes President he belongs as a leader, not to any one State, but to the Nation. It is said that in such a case as this the President is the leader of his party in his State. That is a mistake. When he assumed the larger leadership, he had to give up the smaller. It is impossible for a man to be general-in-chief and captain at the same time. It is further said that in this case it was a matter of unfinished business; that he had undertaken a task, and that loyalty to those who had joined with him made it incumbent upon him to put the matter through and not leave them in the lurch. It is true that under certain circumstances an issue of such great proportion might arise in any State that the Governor who had started to lead his forces might find it his duty to continue the contest even after having been called into the service of the Nation. In such a case it would seem more in keeping with the dignity and duty of his Presidential office to call those who are responsible for the conduct of the State affairs into consultation and conference with him at the Nation's capital. President Wilson has evidently thought the issue of importance enough to continue the fight, and has chosen to do so by going to the State leaders rather than calling the State leaders to him. However it may be in this case, we do not believe that the course which the President has followed is one which should be followed generally.

cepted President Wilson's appointment to this office (subject to confirmation by the Senate, which is beyond doubt), possesses just those qualities. Even when, as The Outlook believes, his judgment was at fault in the investigation of the Board of Water Supply and in the subway matter, no one for a moment questioned his high motive and civic earnestness; while, first as Commissioner of Accounts and later as President of the Board of Aldermen and in his work with the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, and in other ways, he has been invariably a strong influence for economy and efficiency. Rarely does an appointment of this grade receive such wide commendation as being in the public interest. Politically the appointment seems to have been a satisfactory settlement of the difference of opinion between Senator O'Gorman and Secretary McAdoo as to the desirable course. The result, on the other hand, must be anything but satisfactory to Mr. Murphy, although, following the usual Tammany course, he professes friendly acquiescence in what he cannot help. If not classed as a fighting anti-Tammany man, Mr. Mitchel is at least a non-Tammany man with instincts opposed to most Tammany methods. We venture to predict that politics will play small part in his administration as Collector. One of the best possible wishes that can be made for Mr. Mitchel is that, when he ceases to be Collector, he may retire with the same sense of duty performed and advance made that the Collector now at the end of his work must have. Uncompromising in dealing with violators of the law,, able in organization, clear headed. and beyond the faintest imputation of political chicanery, Mr. Loeb has earned the respect and gratitude of all good citizens, regardless of party. Doubtless he has made enemies, but they are of a kind whose enmity proves fidelity to the execution of law and to the enforcement of justice.

not declared their intentions of becoming citizens from acquiring land, and as such declarations from the Japanese are now generally refused when offered, the bill is equivalent to a prohibition of Japanese landownership; it has passed the lower house of Arizona, but last week appeared to be in abeyance, probably awaiting the outcome of the California question. It is supposed that the representations made by the Japanese Government to that of the United States as regards the California situation include also a protest against that in Arizona. It is commonly reported that Viscount Chinda has diplomatically represented to our State Department that the Japanese Government considers the California bill contrary both to the treaty and to the spirit of international friendly relations. Governor Johnson, of California, in accordance with his courteous promise to President Wilson that a reasonable time should elapse before the Webb Bill was signed, to give opportunity for any communications on the subject from the National Government, has refrained, up to the time of writing, from signing the bill. As finally passed, the bill is essentially as outlined in The Outlook last week, with the exception that an amendment was adopted, adding to Section 2 (which allows aliens not eligible to citizenship to acquire and enjoy and transfer land so far as prescribed by existing treaty) a clause giving this class of aliens the specific right to lease lands for agricultural purposes for a term not exceeding three years. There has been a rather general expression of opinion by the press of the country that the Webb Bill, as passed, does not controvert the Treaty of 1911, since, in the first place, it expressly guarantees all treaty rights; and, secondly, the Treaty of 1911 does not contain a general and sweeping "most favored nation clause." Even more general is the expression of belief that action should be taken promptly to obtain from the United States Supreme Court final and authoritative decisions as to rights under the existing treaty, and also on the question ultimately involved as to rights of naturalization. Apart from the legal aspect, it is more and more apparent that the large question at the bottom of all such agitations as this alien land law matter and the Californian school question of a few years ago is the widespread belief in the Pacific States that there is, or may be, danger of a wave of Oriental immigration. Mr. Woehlke, in his article in The Outlook last week, brought this out forcefully

when he said, "The presence of Asiatics in large numbers will always make of California a potential powder barrel." Whether this alarm is justified or not, the vital point is that the question involved is a National one; if more positive action to keep out Asiatic immigration is desired by California, her recourse is to President and Congress; and, on the other hand, it is the duty of the National Government in the future to take the initiative, both through diplomacy and, if needed, through legislation, and thereby prevent such excited agitation as we have lately seen on the one hand in California and on the other hand in Japan.

The Tariff Bill Passes

The passage of the Underwood Tariff Bill by the House of Representatives on May 8 was beyond doubt a tactical triumph for Mr. Underwood as leader of his party; and the President's intimate supporters consider that, as the bill passed contains all the essential features upon which he laid stress, including free wool and the provision for free sugar in the future, it is also a personal triumph for the President. The bill was passed by a vote of 281 to 139. Five Democrats refused to vote with the party, while four Progressives, two Republicans, and one Representative classed as an Independent Republican (Mr. Kent, of California) voted with the Democrats. The bill now goes to the Senate, while the lower house will take up the currency question, and, following the party tactics employed in the tariff matter, will try to find in caucus some measure upon which united party action may be had; if this fails, the currency question will go over to the regular session. Mr. Underwood's final comment on the tariff bill which bears his name is, in effect, that it keeps the Democratic party's promises to the people and that he is confident "that it will bring real relief to the American people in reducing the high cost of living and better adjustment of our business conduct under modern methods." On the other hand, Mr. Payne, whose name is attached to the present tariff law, asserted that the new bill is a menace to the prosperity of the country and that "it aids foreign laborers by throwing open our markets, and discriminates against laborers in the United States, who are forced to meet unjust competition and an enormous increase of imports from foreign countries."

State versus Nation

in the State of Texas.

The United States Commerce Court has reaffirmed two orders of the Inter-State Commerce Commission. The first is the Commission's order to the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company to lower its rates on coal; the second, and more discussed, decision is that in the conflict between inter-State and intra-State rates. A railway runs from Shreveport, Louisiana, to Dallas, Texas. Most of its course is That State has prescribed certain transportation rates for freight. In proportion to the distance, they are lower than is the inter-State rate from Shreveport to Dallas. Now, Shreveport and Dallas are competitors for the trade of the intervening territory, most of which is of course situated in Texas. But such an adjustment of freight charges handicaps Shreveport. It ought not to be thus handicapped. The right of the State of Texas to impose rates is admitted. They must not interfere with inter-State commerce rates. Congress alone has power to regulate inter-State commerce. The pervading purpose of the inter-State commerce law is to prevent unfair discrimination against persons and localities engaged in that commerce. Acting on this, the Shreveport shippers and dealers filed a complaint with the Inter State Commerce Commission. The Commission found that there was unjust discrimination as alleged, and made an order requiring its removal. The Commission also found that the inter-State commodity rates in question were not unreasonable. As the unlawful discrimination against Shreveport was caused by imposing intra-State rates "lower than the petitioner is justly entitled to charge," that petitioner may increase his Texas rates, for, as the Court says, when the Commission's order was made, it relieved the petitioner from further obligation to observe the Texas rates. The decision is of interest as possibly foreshadowing the United States Supreme Court's decision in the similar Minnesota rate case, which, since 1911, has been before that Court for final adjudication. Certainly no State should regulate railway rates of traffic moving wholly within its borders in a manner to kill traffic with competing localities outside of the State. This is specially true in the Shreveport case, for the Court finds that the Texas rates were prescribed not with reference to their intrinsic reasonableness, . . but with the undisguised intention of giving preference and advantage to the dealers of that State as

against their competitors it. Louisiana and other States." Of all public questions, that of the conflict between the States and the Nation is just now the most conspicuous. In respect to this conflict, the Commerce Court reaffirms the principle that the right of the State to control the movement of its internal commerce and the instrumentalities so employed is not unlimited.

As heretofore stated

Putting in Force the Seventeenth Amendment in The Outlook, a sufficient number of States have ratified by their Legislatures the joint resolution of the Sixty-second Congress amending the Constitution of the United States so as to provide for the direct election of United States Senators. The Secretary of State has been officially advised of such action by thirty-five States, and unofficial information is authentic that one other State, at least, has taken the necessary action, which provides the required number of thirty-six, or three-quarters of the forty-eight States. As soon as the last necessary official ratification is reported, the Secretary of State will issue his announcement certifying that the Amendment has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States. To put in force the Amendment, however, it will be necessary for each State, through its Legislature, to provide by statute for the changed manner of electing its Senators; that is, each State must provide the means for getting the names of the Senatorial candidates upon the State ticket. In States in which nominations are made by primary election it will be necessary by statute to provide that the names of Senatorial candidates be placed on the primary election ballots, and then, after nomination, that their names be properly certified to be placed upon the official election ballots. During the next two years there may arise some complications due to neglect by Legislatures either now in session or next year to act, or due to the fact that in some States Legislatures meet only every two years. The first general test of the Amendment will come in November, 1914, at which time Senators whose terms expire March 4, 1915, will be re-elected, or others elected in their place. Because there can be no compulsory uniformity in legislation in the several States, each of the forty-eight States will have to take its own independent action, although there may be, and quite likely will be, a voluntary following of some general