views of that faction of the Senate with which he has been identified. Upon this point we must defer judgment until the full text of the compromise measure is before us. According to Mr. William E. Curtis, the well-informed correspondent of the Chicago" Record-Herald," the new bill is entirely satisfactory not only to the great railroad interests but also to the trusts which aspire to hold permanently the confidence of the investing public. Says Mr. Curtis :

The managers of the small trusts and the weak trusts, those that are waterlogged by the issue of excessive stock, and those which for any other reason shrink from public exposure of their assets or transactions, are opposed to all legislation, but the managers of the Standard Oil Company, the United States Steel Corporation, the Pennsylvania, New York Central, Great Northern, Santa Fé, Southern Pacific system, the Southern Railway, the Gould system, the coal roads, and all

the great combinations controlled by Pierpont Morgan, not only favor it, but are desirous that it should be placed upon the statutebooks before the adjournment of the present Congress. I have seen representatives of the interests I have named, and they comprise all the great trusts except the American Sugar Refining Company, or sugar trust.

Of course this attitude on the part of the trust magnates has prejudiced the compromise bill in the eyes of the radicals, who assert that their constituents will not be satisfied with any measure which merely keeps railroads from cutting rates. and secures only enough publicity to protect stockholders against fraud. They admit that both these ends are good in themselves, but insist that the consuming public as well as the investing public needs to be protected against the abuses of private monopoly.

The Statehood Bill

In the Senate the Omnibus Statehood Bill held the right of way, despite the attempt of Senator Cullom, of Illinois, to set it aside in order to take up the consideration of the Cuban treaty. The vote against Senator Cullom's proposal was 37 to 27, or, including pairs, 48 to 38. All the Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted to keep the Statehood Bill the unfinished business of the Senate. Senator Burnham, of New Hampshire, made a two days' speech against the bill, and other oppo

nents of the measure are ready to postpone a vote by long speeches, but the friends of the bill claim to be able to force a vote before the session ends. The debate of the bill on the Republican side still turns largely upon the extent to which Republican Senators are bound by the Statehood plank in the Republican National platform. Senator Hanna, of Ohio, contended that the plank was not binding at all, because the Democratic platform contained a similar plank and the issue did not enter into the contest. Senator

Beveridge, of Indiana, took the much more tenable position that the issue did not enter into the minds of the voters in any considerable part of the country, and that the constituencies could not therefore be supposed to have instructed their representatives thereon. Senator Foraker, of Ohio, who supported the Statehood Bill, admitted that the Statehood plank did not command any consideration in the East, but declared that it was adopted to strengthen the Republican party in the West, and was binding upon those who cared to discharge party obligations deliberately assumed. The other point most discussed was the fitness of the "native" or Spanish-speaking population, strong in Arizona and predominant in New Mexico, to assume the duties of citizens of American States. Upon this point the debate was singularly non-partisan, for the criticism of the Mexican elements in the citizenship of the two Territories came exclusively from the Republican party, to which most of these Mexican voters belong. In the Congressional election last fall the " American "counties in the two Territories were generally close or Democratic, while the Spanish counties of the Rio Grande valley went Republican by overwhelming majorities. The opposition to Statehood for these two Territories is not based upon partisan considerations. New Mexico is more strongly Republican than Arizona is Democratic.

wishes of the United States in the matter of annuity, and hence that it might force on our own Government a recourse to the Nicaragua project, the less desirable route for an interoceanic canal. As all the subjects for a treaty had been agreed upon except the annuity, it was hoped that a reasonable compromise might be effected between the sum of $100,000 a year which our Government had offered, and the sum of $650,000 demanded by Colombia. Mr. Hay finally arranged this compromise, and an agreement was made upon the sum of $250,000 a year, on which the Colombian Government transmitted instructions and authority to Dr. Tomas Herran, its representative in the United States, which made possible the signing of a treaty, thus concluding the complicated and long-pending negotiations for an Isthmian Canal. The treaty provides for the canal on terms which should prove satisfactory both to the United States Senate and to the Colombian Government. The titular sovereignty of that Government over the leased strip of land, six miles wide, through which the canal will run is recognized, and the free transit of Colombian troops in this territory permitted. The cash payment to be made is $10,000,000, as already agreed upon, and the annual rental of $250,000 is to begin in nine years. By the terms of the treaty the Panama Railway reverts to the United States at the end of sixty years. Ample recognition is made of the delicate matter of Colombian sovereignty, which formed a particularly vexatious and serious obstacle to the completion of the treaty, by an arrangement for policing and for the establishment of justice through a Joint High Commission, although no American citi en may be tried except by his own courts. The United States Government will be permitted to police the strip of land, but it will not be allowed to land troops there except in case of a great emergency, or at the request of the Colombian Government or that of the State of Panama. While the cities of Colon and Panama are not included in the leased strip, the control of the waters of the two ports, as well as the collection of port and tonnage dues and all other matters necessary to the construction and administration of the canal, is by the terms of the treaty vested in the United States.

Ratification

As Secretary Hay has been The Treaty's in close touch with the leading Senators throughout the negotiations leading up to the signing of the treaty, the prospect of its ratification by Congress is considerably increased. Most Senators, we believe, now realize that the Panama route is better than the Nicaraguan, not only because it is shorter, cheaper, and more feasible as regards quick canal construction, but also because, for these very reasons, the menace is removed to the possible construction by another Power of any other canal, which would have existed with regard to the uncompleted ditch at Panama had the Nicaragua route been chosen. There may be more difficulty with the Colombian Congress than with our own as to ratification; but, since finances in that country are in a bad state owing to the inflation of the currency and an unpaid army, the Colombian Congress at its spring session may feel that this treaty, which by its law must pass both houses, should pass with as little delay as possible. While the payment of $40,000,000 to the French company for its canal rights and of $10,000,000 to Colombia for concessions will constitute one of the largest financial transactions ever made by the Treasury Department, no payments will, of course, be made until after the treaty has been ratified by the Senate and the Colombian Congress. Elections for members of the Colombian Congress are now being held, and are not uninfluenced by the prospect, first, of the assurance of a substantial increase of State income; secondly, of a gigantic and everincreasing trade; and, thirdly, of the renewal of guarantees of protection from this country. For while the treaty pledges Colombia not to cede any territory, mainland or insular, in the neighborhood of the canal, among all the twenty-eight articles none will attract more attention throughout the world than the following:

Article IV. The rights and privileges granted to the United States by the terms of this convention shall not affect the sovereignty of the republic of Colombia over the territory within whose boundaries such rights and privileges are to be exercised. The United States freely acknowledges and recognizes this sovereignty and disavows any intention to impair it in any way whatever, or to increase its territory at the expense of Colombia or of any of the sister republics of Central or South America, but, on the contrary, it desires to

strengthen the power of the republics on this continent and to promote, develop, and maintain their prosperity and independence.

The Alaskan Treaty

The

Panama Canal treaty was not the only one secured last week by the American Department of State. Within two days of the signing of that treaty, Mr. Hay and Sir Michael Herbert, British Ambassador at Washington, signed a treaty for the adjudication (not the arbitration) of the Alaskan boundary question. By the terms of the agreement, the matter is to be referred to a Commission consisting of six eminent jurists, three to be appointed by each of the two Governments concerned. This is precisely the plan proposed by Colonel Hay three years ago. It was rejected then by the Canadian members of the Joint High Commission which was sitting in Washington to settle twelve points of difference between Canada and the United States-the Atlantic and Great Lakes fisheries disputes, the transportation of goods in bond, the delimitation of the Minnesota boundary, and other questions, of which by far the most important was that of the Alaskan boundary. It is believed that all of these questions save the last would have been speedily disposed of if it had not been for the rejection of Mr. Hay's proposal. The Canadians did this because they were contending for arbitration, a suggestion emphatically declined by our Government in view of the fact that it held a complete title to Alaska. This title had been not only unchallenged but repeatedly acknowledged by Great Britain until the discovery of Klondike gold. Then Canada succeeded in persuading England to take up the contention that the eastern Russian boundary of Alaska was originally measured from the outer rim of islands skirting the coast, and not from the edge of the mainland. This admitted, Canada would gain several seaports. The Commission adjourned without having decided a single one of the points of difference for the settlement of which it had originally met. Influenced strongly by the Canadian Government at a time when the British army needed colonial strengthening, Lord Salisbury's Government actually refused for a time to proceed with the revision of the Clayton

Bulwer Treaty, until Canadian claims in Alaska were settled. However, Mr. Hay did secure the signing of a modus vivendi, on the understanding that the claims of both nations should not be affected by the agreement, which did not give to Canada a free port or access to the Lynn Canal through Canadian territory.

Anglo-American Friendship

If credit was due to the American Secretary for the modus vivendi established, greater credit should be accorded to him for finally inducing the British and Canadians to abandon their demand for arbitration purely on a question of legal title. Sir Michael Herbert's signature thus finally disposes of the insistence from our Northern neighbors that to the Commission of six men there should be added a seventh member, from a third and neutral nation, to act as umpire. The result of all is not only a personal victory for Secretary Hay, but is a welcome manifestation of British friendliness. Satisfaction is evident both in Washington and in London. In the first capital the treaty has created en thusiasm in Congress; and rightly, for, like the Panama treaty, it was drawn up only after thorough consultation with the leading Senators, both Republican and Democratic, the Administration being earnestly desirous of doing all possible in advance to secure the prompt ratification of both treaties. In London the Alaskan treaty is hailed with satisfaction by the English press in general, on the ground that, at a critical moment in the Venezuela trouble, it gives to America undoubted proof of the uninterrupted friendliness existing between Great Britain and the United States; and in particular the words of the London "Times," long the leader of English newspapers, deserve repetition. The "Times" rejoices at the constitution of the proposed Commission, which, it says, "implies a high degree of confidence on each side in the equity and the friendship of the other side. The same Commission with an odd man added would become virtually an arbitration court. Though arbitration is a very good thing in its way, it is not nearly as good as direct negotiation, if only because it does not

and Disgraced

This winter, as every Legislatures Deadlocked winter for many years, several of the Legislatures with a United States Senator to elect have enacted scenes of political scandal. Last week the Republican legislators of Utah on the first ballot elected the Mormon missionary and Apostle Smoot to the Senate, and those of the New York Legislature on the first ballot re-elected Senator Platt. The selection of Apostle Smoot may be defended as representing the choice of a majority of the voters of Utah; but the selection of Senator Platt has not even this defense. Senator Platt was distinctively the candidate of the Republican machine, and had a control over the majority in the Legislature, largely composed of men dependent on the machine, which he could not exercise over the voters of the State or even the thick-and-thin supporters of his own party. Even in the Legislature three Republicans, voicing, as they said, the almost unanimous sentiment of their constituents, defied the political machine and voted for Mr. Root. In Delaware the deadlock of years remains unbroken, the corruptionist Addicks controlling twenty-one votes, the Democratic candidate twentyone, and the anti-Addicks Republicans ten. The Democrats have proposed to the anti-Addicks Republicans to unite with them in electing a Republican for the long term in the Senate and a Democrat for the short term, and this offer is under serious consideration in Delaware. Unfortunately, Senator Hanna has interfered in the contest by protesting against any fusion with Democrats which would rob the Republicans of any of the fruits of Mr. Addicks's bribery. If Republican union upon Mr. Addicks is brought about by outside pressure upon the Legislature, the voters of Delaware will be wronged, for neither a majority nor a plurality of voters ever gave their support to the great corruptionist. The position taken by Senator Hanna seems to be that Mr. Addicks is entitled to the fruits of a victory for which he has paid a large sum in cash; that common honesty is not among the necessary qualifications of a Senator; and that a Republican who buys votes, bribes

male population of the State is better qualified than any Democrat could possibly be to make laws for a nation of honest men and women. This may be "good politics," in the narrow, partisan sense of the words; but it strikes us as very bad morality.

The Colorado Conflict

In the Colorado Legislature the scenes of last week were even more sensational than in Delaware. The Colorado Senate, by reason of the hold-over Senators, was, on the face of the returns, Democratic by a vote of 23 to 13; the House, whose members were all newly elected last fall, was Republican by a vote of 31 to 28. Democratic frauds were charged in the county containing the city of Denver, and on the basis of these charges the Republican House unseated just enough Democratic members to give their party the control of the Legislature on joint ballot. The Democrats do not seem to deny the seriousness of the frauds charged, but claim that they were quite insufficient to offset their heavy majority in the county. On the strength of this claim they proceeded to unseat enough Republican Senators to give them again a bare majority on the joint ballot. The Republican Lieutenant-Governor, as President of the Senate, refused to grant the motion proposed by members of the Democratic majority, and attempted to recognize the thirteen Republican Senators as the Senate. He appealed to the Republican Governor for troops to support him in his position, but that official very properly refused to take any such action. The Democratic Senators had at their back the police of Denver, and a clash at arms was at first feared. The deadlock continued for several days, but the advantage from the first was on the side of the Democrats, who were united upon Senator Teller, the nominee of their State Convention, while the Republicans were bitterly at odds among themselves as to whether ex-Senator Wolcott should again represent them. Finally the official recognition of the Democratic Senate as the regular body, and the assembling of all the Democrats of both Houses within the Senate, made possible a joint ballot in which a bare majority of the Legislature

took part. Senator Teller received every vote, and ex-Senator Wolcott has recommended that this election be not contested by the Republicans. Nevertheless, the violence of the struggle and the near approach of anarchy have deepened the conviction that United States Senators, like Governors and Presidents, should be elected by the people instead of by the Legislatures.

The New York

The decision of the Court

Franchise Tax of Appeals of New York Unconstitutional that the franchise tax law of that State is unconstitutional because it delegates the assessment of the tax to State appointees instead of local tax officers gives current interest to the history of the enactment of the measure four years ago. As the bill first passed the Legislature at the close of the regular session, it provided for just such method of assessment as the Court now declares would have been constitutional. The manner in which it was changed to its present unconstitutional form was described as follows in The Outlook of May

27, 1899:

Governor Roosevelt has summoned an extra session of the New York Legislature under peculiar circumstances. The Ford Franchise Tax Bill, it will be recalled, subjected the property of gas companies, street railways, and the like to taxation in the same manner and the same amount as real estate. To this act not only the corporations interested, but the Republican machine, represented by Senator Platt, made strenuous objection. They demanded that the present method of taxing these corporations upon their gross receipts should be continued, and that in any event the proposed tax upon franchises should not be in addition to present taxes, and should be assessed by a State Board instead of local boards, as the Ford Bill proposed. These last changes Governor Roosevelt asks the Legislature to make. ... The point made by the corporations, that the proposed tax on the value of their franchises should not be additional to present taxes, is fair; for, while these companies enjoy special privileges, the general demand of the public is merely that they shall pay the same taxes as other property-owners. Governor Roosevelt, therefore, will have public sentiment behind him in favoring the amendment demanded. When, however, he yields to the demand that a State Board instead of local boards shall assess this property, he makes a concession whose justification from the public standpoint is by no means clear. The street railways and gas companies of one city are less in competition with those of another than are manufacturers or even merchants. If the latter

The corporate influences which induced the Legislature to change the method of assessing the tax proceeded to attack the constitutionality of the act on the ground. that it contained the provision they had recommended. The fact that the present decision seems to sustain the constitutionality of the act in every point except the method of assessment (two of the five judges sustaining it in every point) has led some of the supporters of the law, including its author, Senator Ford, and Comptroller Grout, to insist that the remainder of the act stands, and that local boards can proceed to assess the This confranchises covered by the act. tention, however, is more than debatable, as the method of assessing the franchises was an integral part of the act as finally Instead of signed by the Governor.

awaiting new court decisions upon points so difficult to sustain, it is best that all friends of equal taxation should concentrate their efforts upon securing a new law in line with the Court's decision.

vs.

The Pennsylvania

The Western Union Two conflicting decisions have been handed down by United States Circuit Courts in the suit brought by the Western Union Telegraph Company to prevent the removal of its poles and wires from the right of way owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The United States Circuit Court of the District of New Jersey has decided in favor of the telegraph company; the United States Circuit Court of the District of Western Pennsylvania has decided in favor of the railroad company. The former has enjoined the railroad from removing the telegraph company's wires and poles, while the latter has refused to grant such an injunction. The text of both decisions is before us, and the points of agreement and divergence are both interesting. It is agreed that the telegraph company has been renting the right of way of the railroad company since 1881, under a