Imágenes de páginas
[blocks in formation]

Vardaman, whose voice has thrilled thousands of his supporters in other campaigns, did not raise it once in this. His managers said his teeth had been extracted and he could not make himself understood from the platform. His campaigning has been done by proxy.

The future is bright. Next year some of the most conscientious political leaders the State has developed in a generation will be candidates for Governor, including Sennett Connor. the young Speaker of the House. A wondrous change from Vardaman, Russell, and Bilbo days.

Mississippi is to be congratulated.


HERE have been other interesting


elections besides those in Missis

sippi. Wisconsin Republicans have again proved their loyalty to La Follette by giving him another nomination to his present office. Senator La Follette's hold upon his State is not easy to analyze. His record at Washington has been erratic. In judgment he has frequently been seriously at fault, although it certainly must be said that his vote has been governed by his convictions rather than by self-interest. Some of his success is due to the fact that though he was once classified as an in surgent, with a rod in pickle for any political machine, he has built up a personal organization in his own State which works on ball bearings.

In Maryland Senator France has, like La Follette, secured a renomination to his present office in the Republican primaries. He defeated Mr. John W. Garrett, who was Secretary of the Washing ton Arms Conference.

The Democrats can apparently take little comfort from the elections in Maine. Maine, as all Americans know, holds its State elections in September. The vote in this State has always been regarded as an indication of the general political trend of the country, the varying majorities of Maine serving as a political barometer. This year Senator Hale and the Republican State ticket have been re-elected to office by a majority which appears at this writing to indicate no significant loss of Republican prestige.

Harris & Ewing


fall in later. This to some extent parallels the way in which the strike condi tion in the soft-coal industry was weakened. In both cases the result sought Iwas that unions should abandon their demand for settlement on a National basis and that operators and workers who wanted to come together should be allowed to do so. The railway executives claim that, what with loyal employees and new men, they have a fairly competent force at work now and that before long the strike is bound to collapse of its own weight. On the other hand, Mr. Gompers declares that the shopmen's fight is now stronger than ever. The embargo on Western freight other than food announced by four Eastern railways is based on a desire to give coal priority, but labor men say that it indicates a shortage of locomotives.

In this situation it is doubtful whether the sweeping injunction asked by Attorney-General Daugherty is not a hindering rather than a helpful influence. At all events, it has been occupyFTER an inexcusably leisurely delay ing the public attention and stirring up



AFor a wine or more following the lawyers, economists, and industrial lead

general agreement of union leaders and operators to resume hard-coal mining, the contracts have been formally signed and actual work began in the mines on September 11; 155,000 workers reported and the number is increasing every day. The mines were closed 163 days, there has been no summer production, and it is obviously impossible to catch up with the shortage actually existing. Danger of an actual coal famine is averted; but the householder will have to get his hard coal in small quantities, and he is urged to save it by careful stoking and handling and to employ substitutes such as coke, hard-surfaced and screened soft coal, and wood so far as possible. Congress will probably soon send to the President the two bills (now in conference between the Houses) that in different form have passed both Houses, one setting up a fact-finding commission for the coal industry, the other providing against profiteering and for priorities and fair distribution of coal. Both recognize that a National emergency exists in the production, transportation, and distribution of coal and other fuel, but neither looks forward to future emergencies by providing a permanent National Coal Commission.

[blocks in formation]

ers on both sides almost to the exclusion of other controversies.

When the temporary Federal injunction came up in Chicago before Judge Wilkerson, who originally issued it, in an effort to make it permanent, an offhand effort to have it canceled, made by the defendant's attorneys, was properly dismissed, and as we write argument is going on as to the facts on which the injunction is based, its Constitutionality. and its legality under the Clayton Act. We print below press despatches summarizing the allegations of acts said to be committed by members of the shopmen's unions or by their adherents and supporters, as presented in affidavits to support the Attorney-General's claim that a state of terrorism and sabotage exists amounting to a conspiracy to interfere with inter-State commerce and the transmission of the mails:

Twenty-five murders, some of men, women, and children who were not opposing the strikers but were travelers on trains.

Twelve trains abandoned in the deserts of California and hundreds of passengers, some very old, some babies in arms and some ill, forced to live in terrific heat for periods of from one to four days.

Approximately 950 mail trains forced to discontinue. A loss of $75,000,000 suffered by California fruit-growers, unable to have their products transported.

Dynamiting, bombing, and setting fire to railroad property, including many bridges.

The removal of non-union coal cars from trains in Kentucky; tampering with the mechanism of 4,000 or 5,000

cars so they could not be moved and setting fire to others.

The drawing of spikes from rails in innumerable cases, endangering lives of workers and passengers.

It is understood that the AttorneyGeneral has expressed willingness to make changes in the original restraining order as to phrases which are construed by labor leaders as interfering with proper liberty of speech and of legal personal action. This charge has been voiced by Mr. Gompers in vehement language, accompanied by the declaration that "It is a well-known and wellestablished fact that organized labor has discouraged the resort of the railway strikers or even their friends or sympathizers to violent or unlawful methods. They have been counseled to confine their activities within the province of their Constitutional right."


HE Nation has a new amateur golf

Te Nation has a new ho has never

held that honor before. It was to Jesse Sweetser, a Yale undergraduate, that the wreath of victory fell.

Sweetser, in the course of the National tournament at Brookline, Massachusetts, defeated in turn William Hunter, a former British champion; Robert Jones, of championship caliber; Jesse Guilford, holder of the last year's American championship; and Charles Evans, who has twice won this honor. It was Evans who shared with Sweetser the final match of the tournament and who lost the chance of regaining his former title by a defeat of three down and two to play. Sweetser's deadly approaching was perhaps the deciding factor in his well-earned victory, though it would be hard to find any flaws in the rest of his game.



HE railroad strike still wends its weary way in spite of AttorneyGeneral Daugherty's sweeping injunctions or rather, perhaps, because of them. In The Outlook of September 6, Mr. Rollin Lynde Hartt quoted Mr. William Carman Roberts, an expert in the knowledge of public opinion as expressed through the daily press, as say ing:

Never in my whole experience have I known strikes to be so generally condemned. As a rule, newspapers are inclined to side with the "under dog." This time, with the exception of the labor press, they have been almost unanimous in denouncing the strikers. as the strikes appeared

selfishly inopportune, coming just when a return of prosperity was in sight. The railway strike especially invited censure.

Strikes feed upon public sympathy; nothing so weakens a strike as the lack of it. Entirely apart from Mr. Daugherty's failure to understand or recognize legal and ethical precedents in his sweeping application, it may be said that he was guilty of a serious tactical mistake. The first result of his effort was to arouse public sympathy, which the strikers had been steadily alienating, in behalf of the unions. That this is not an unfair charge is indicated by the sudden modification made by Mr. Daugherty in the form of his application for an injunction when the Administration at Washington began to get the reaction of public opinion.

Stripped of all its legal technicalities and verbiage, the principle upon which an injunction may justly be based is a very simple one. The only true function of an injunction is to prevent the performance of an act which may result in an irreparable injury if it is committed. For example: A telephone or a telegraph company is running its lines along a village street, and to accomplish what it desires threatens to cut down an elm tree a hundred years old. The only recourse for the village, or for the property owner on whose land the elm tree stands, is an immediate injunction; for if the tree is cut down, no amount of damages awarded by the court can reproduce the tree. A hundred years is required for such a reproduction. But if the company erects an unsightly pole on private property, no injunction is needed. The owner can appeal to the court, and if the court decides that the pole is an injury, it can be removed and the status quo ante re-established.

If it comes to the knowledge of the authorities that a train crew are planning to abandon a train in the midst of a Western desert, an injunction is the proper remedy, because when the train is once abandoned, no court can supply an adequate remedy. To enjoin men, however, from meeting or speaking in behalf of strikes or strikers is unneces sary, because incendiary language which is contrary to the statute law can be punished by ordinary judicial procedure. Government by injunction is fraught with danger to free institutions. Injunctions should be resorted to and granted by the courts only when it is apparent that this is the only method that can avert a fundamental social or individual wrong.

But Mr. Daugherty is not by any means the only man to blame. The American people must share the respon

sibility with him. For the people through their representatives in Congress have by the Clayton Act exempted labor organizations and farmers' organizations from the operation of the statute law, and then, when labor organizations acting under that exemption try to do things which injure or incense the public, that public, or a portion of it, clamors for injunctions. Is not this really an illogical and foolish way to handle the problem?

How simple it would be if the principle of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, which makes combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade illegal, were extended to all organizations, whether of capital, or of labor, or of agriculture. This would not, in spite of Mr. Gompers's alarms, prevent the individual workman or groups of workmen or great bodies of workmen from quitting their jobs or from collective bargaining. It would, however, give the public the protection of the courts, which would decide in the case of a great strike, like the coal strike or the railroad strike, what evidence there was of a conspiracy or of specific acts to restrain trade. If in addition the trade unions were incorporated with properly constituted treasuries making reports to the Government like the treasuries of every other corporation, they could be assessed damages for their illegal combinations in restraint of trade when the court so decided. This seems to us to be a prime and essential step to take before we can have any kind of logical and effective dealing with industrial conflicts in this country.



E wish some modern Savonarola could preach a series of denun ciatory sermons exposing the vice of pussy-footing. It is certainly one of the most pernicious and characteristic vices of present-day public men and governments.

What is pussy-footing?

The Lusitania was sunk by what the Federal Courts of the United States afterwards declared to be a murderous act of piracy, and some American statesmen were cautious in expressing any opinion in regard to it or in taking part in any public protest against it because their protest might affect the German


That is pussy-footing.

Railroad strikers dynamite passenger cars; tamper with electric systems; endeavor to derail trains by removing bolts from the track; and abandon women and children to suffer from hunger and thirst in the desert; and states

men advocate the return of the strikers with their seniority rights unimpaired because of the labor vote.

That is pussy-footing.

Both Houses of Congress have passed a Bonus Bill, but both Houses are aware that public opinion is against the plan and they are relying on the President to veto the final measure; they fear to act according to their convictions because of the soldier vote.

That is pussy-footing.

The Senate has adopted a Tariff Act which is acknowledged to be the worst hodgepodge that the history of American industrialism has yet produced; but Republican Senators, instead of voting against it, have quietly shelved it in conference, hoping that it will die an unnoticed death and thus relieve them of antagonizing the manufacturing vote. That is pussy-footing.

Fortunately for American self-respect, this kind of pussy-footing is not wholly confined to this country. One of the worst examples of it has just come to our attention, and the English must bear the brunt of the accusation.

The Turks have been committing indescribable atrocities in the Near East. This is nothing new. The Turks have been doing this kind of thing for some centuries.

The Rev. Ralph S. Harlow, Professor of History and Sociology in the American College at Smyrna, has just arrived in this country. He has been in correspondence with The Outlook for many months, and has given us information which has aroused our indignation with regard to Turkish savagery. Within a few days he has been in the office of The Outlook, and photographs which he had of acts of atrocious murder and assault by the Turks on the Armenians and other nonTurkish people were so sickening that it was almost impossible to look at them. Tht Turkish situation became so intolerable that a few months ago the British Government invited the American Government to take part in an official investigation and report of these atrocities. France and Italy were to join in the undertaking. After some hesitation the American Government accepted the invitation, and this acceptance was hailed with joy in these columns as an indication that our Government was prepared to do its share when it could in restoring a civilized equilibrium in Europe. That official investigation, if it had taken place, might not have resulted in any organized attempt to stop the Turkish torturers by force; indeed, our Government expressly reserved the right not to commit itself to any further action than that of investigation and report; but the investigation alone

would have had a great and far-reaching moral influence.

Our joy has now been turned into indignation by learning that just as the American Government was about to appoint its official representatives on the investigating commission, it received an official communication from the British Government saying that the original plan contemplated was impracticable, and suggesting that the whole matter be referred to the International Red Cross. What has happened undoubtedly is that such pressure has been brought to bear on the British and French Governments by Mohammedans in India and Egypt and Tunis and Algiers that Great Britain and France are pussy-footing.

No investigation by the International Red Cross can begin to have the effect on public opinion or upon the Turkish Government that the official Governmental investigation by Great Britain, France, Italy, and the United States would have had. The whole plan has now ended in a complete and pitiable fiasco. We do not belittle the terrible problem which Great Britain has to face. A general uprising of the Mohammedan populations of India and Egypt as a method of expressing their sympathy with the Mohammedan torturers of Turkey would be a serious and perhaps a terrible menace to the British Empire. Nevertheless, pussy-footing never made, nor will it ever save, an empire.



HE heat and vexation of the dogdays have plagued the world since the time of Pliny. This year they have culminated in a rather unusual outburst of international irritability. Mr. Kipling, for example, in an interview in the New York "World" reported by Mrs. Clare Sheridan, the English sculptress, says that Americans came too late into the war; that about all we did was to make eight per cent out of our war loans; and that we prevented the Allies from continuing the war and framing the terms of peace in Berlin. "They have got the gold," he says, speaking of us Americans, "but we have saved our souls."

Of course this has raised a storm of protest. It has been useful, however, in that it has brought to light an important historical fact. Mr. Weeks, Secretary of War, commenting on Mr. Kipling's assertion, says officially that General Pershing wished to continue to advance into Berlin, but that the hostilities were suspended and the Armistice signed when it was because of the insistence of Marshal Foch and the British General Haig.

We advise our readers not to take Mr. Kipling's strictures too seriously. He is

not a statesman, but a poet, and a rather irascible and temperamental one at that. Moreover, his reporter, Mrs. Sheridan, has an artistic and lively imagination, and is more interested in sensations than in statesmanship. The indiscretion of the interview is evidently not wholly Mr. Kipling's. In spite of his manifest and rather waspish desire to get under our skin, we shall go on reading "Puck of Pook's Hill" and "M'Andrew's Hymn" with equanimity and pleasure.

Another Briton has also succumbed to the heat of the dog-days. George Greenwood, of the "Daily Telegraph," in writ ing of the recent victory of American golfers over their British competitors, says:

Personally I see nothing wrong with British golf. The plain truth is we do not make a business of it, and I sincerely hope we never shall.... If the Americans in their pursuit of golf care to live on milk and fish, to eschew tobacco, and go to bed at ten o'clock, let them. I would rather see Tolley, Ray, and Vardon blowing clouds of tobacco smoke around the links than with their mouths full of chewing gum,

Dear! dear! If golf as a sport and a pastime is to be judged by the comparative moral advantages of chewing gum and tobacco, it will cease to be a pastime and degenerate into a mere educational system. The whole world seems to be becoming pedagogical and psychological. We do wish that Brother Greenwood would suppress his didactic tendencies long enough to let us get a little fun out of international competitions.

Another phenomenon of the dog-days is found in the tempest in a teapot which has been aroused by an article in a supplementary volume of the "Encyclopædia Britannica" on Mr. Newton Baker, Secretary of War in the Wilson Administration. Letters and interviews have appeared in the daily press denouncing the article because it calls Mr. Baker a politician. We think it was very wrong of the "Encyclopædia Britannica" to do this. The "Century Dictionary" defines a politician as "one who is versed in the science of government and the art of governing; one who is skilled in politics." Mr. Baker is an able lawyer; a fine citizen; a delightful neighbor; a man of high ideals and aspirations; but one who was not successful as a politician under the foregoing definition. He did more than any other man, except President Wilson, to ruin the political fortunes of his party. His motives and ideals may have been, and doubtless were, of the highest, but the fact remains that he was not a political success. The editor of the "Encyclopædia Britannica" in

upon his critics might recall the story of the Western editor who said of a man in his small town, "Bill Jones is so dirty and shiftless that he is not fit to live with pigs." On being asked at the point of a revolver to retract, he said in the

next issue of his newspaper: "We said last week that 'Bill Jones is not fit to live with pigs.' We apologize. He is fit to live with pigs." If the editor of the "Britannica" had said, not that Mr. Baker was a politician, but that he was


unsuccessful politician, he would come nearer the truth.

All of which leads us to suggest that in the dog-days everybody should try to keep cool and wait with patience for the regenerating frosts of November.



E ought to be murdered!"

[ocr errors]

This is what his neighbor's wife thought, and said, as she watched him, conscious that the eyes of the town were upon him, as he returned to work before the settlement of the strike.

"The women are worse than the men to talk, more radical." So said the wife of a farmer who had moved to town.

I wanted to know how the people of Hillyard think and feel after two months with the railway shopmen on strike and with no immediate prospect of settlement in sight. So I spent a day talking it over with a minister, a banker, the Ford man, a farmer, a striker, a merchant, and anybody else that I could scare up a conversation with. Hillyard is a railway town-intermountain division point on the Great Northern and location of extensive car shops-just outside Spokane.

The man "who ought to be murdered" had gone to work under force of necessity, conviction, or persuasion, perhaps all three, and doubtless deeply troubled about questions of loyalty to himself, the union, and the company. But he found himself in deeper trouble than before; for when he appeared in the shops for work the strike-breakers looked upon him as England looked upon Benedict Arnold. He was a traitor to his union and his class.

"What in hell are you doing here?" he was asked. "We are strike-breakers. You don't belong with us." And they made it so intolerable for him that he was glad to quit and informed his friends of the union-friends no longer -that "he saw things differently now." He had forfeited the respect of his striking neighbors and was held in contempt by the strike-breakers. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, a man takes his social standing, if not his life, in his hands when he tries to break into that situation.

This is only one of the little hells created by the labor war now in progress on the Western roads. Newspaper reports indicate that the same situation, or worse, obtains in other division towns.

An old man, long an employee of the company and with a pension coming soon, kept his job in the conviction that he had earned the right. His sons struck, and now they "don't speak." Men and women who are ordinarily

frank and outspoken in their opinions have "shut up." They will not discuss the situation. They "don't want to get into trouble with their neighbors." "Scabs" or strike-breakers live in the "shacks" or cottages provided by the company, mingle very little with the townspeople, and go strictly about their business when they do. They are paid in cash, so that they do not need to ask the banks or stores to cash checks. No one has been molested in a physical way, but there are many methods by which pickets, strikers, and even women and children can make life a social misery for any one who is a "traitor to his kind." Scab signs are posted in numerous places, in stores and windows of homes:

Don't Be a Scab

A scab is the most contemptible thing on earth (and more)

Be a Man

Pickets are seen singly and in pairs at all the entrances to the yards as well as at all street corners. Every man who looks like a worker is tackled without ceremony to learn his business or destination, and is made decidedly uncomfortable in his mind if he intends to work for the company. One young farmer, unshaven and looking a little rough, dismounted from the street car, was approached and asked his intentions. "None of your d- business," he shot back. "I don't ask you where you are going and what you're going to do."

One merchant said: "If it were not for the pickets, the strike would not last a week. Most of the men were not in favor of it, to begin with. There was no dissatisfaction here. They were called out by the unions. But the pickets make it so uncomfortable for a man that he can't stand the gaff."

A peculiar psychology exists. Among the strikers there is a tacit respect for the man who is frankly out for his own interests, as they see it. Thus old men who are nearing their pension age are permitted, or even asked, to retain their jobs. Superintendents and bosses down to but not including the "straw bosses" are supposed to be identified with the company; they are not permitted to join the unions and they are for the most part respected. At least they are not held in contempt as traitors to labor. The line is drawn at the "straw" or sub

boss who is a member of the union and who, if he keeps his job, is called a scab.

The unions practically control the situation, and public opinion, where it is opposed to the strike, is silent or finds only an underground expression. Business men who hold this position will, when approached, make an out-and-out declaration of sympathy for the strikers, and then, having paid tribute to "safety first," will, if conversation is extended, gradually reveal their true attitude, which is about as follows:

The strike was unjustified and not desired by the substantial men in the unions, but forced by the "higher ups." Jewell is accused of having "hidden out" for a few days after the strike was declared. Admissions of wrongs on both sides are admitted. It is war, and we will have to pay the bill. The strike is a poor method of settling a dispute and does not really determine the rights and wrongs of the question, any more than war does. Seniority, which is now the only bone of contention, cannot in fairness be granted. The President blundered when he suggested that the companies yield this point.

Farmers and those whose business is with farmers are the only ones who bluntly and frankly come out in opposition to the strike. The farmers' interest has been jeopardized. They are facing serious loss and inconvenience right now, with the possibility of greater or total loss in some instances as the result of the transportation tie-up. Milk sours on the sidings on account of delays and the bottom has fallen out of the perishable-fruit market. Hence the farmers are outspoken in condemnation of the unions, the companies, and the Government in its failure to deal with the situation strongly. Hopes of a farmer-labor bloc have been shoved some distance into the future. A farm laborer expressed sympathy for the strikers, and then said: "But there are some things about the unions that ain't right. If a man goes to work in the shops, they call him a scab. But these strikers go out and take my farm jobs away from me. I call them scabs just as much as the strike-breakers." A house painter, when the strike came on, found himself underbid and his business taken from him.

Strikers think that public opinion is gradually shifting to them. I am afraid it is the public opinion of their own cir

cle and of the business that is dependent upon them, a part of which, at least, is not wholly outspoken. The public that stands "apart" watching the fight is quite impartial, criticising both sides and generally disgusted with two men whose interests are ultimately identical fighting each other and shifting the cost upon the spectator.

One of the striking shopmen, while defending his own position with evident sincerity but taking for the moment the position of the "suffering public," said with conviction: "The situation is intolerable and fearfully expensive. It should never have been allowed to occur, and there should be some Government agency with power to prevent its ever occurring again."

The original causes of the strike were:

Proposed wage cuts. Not strenuously opposed by the men.

Proposal to pay overtime only after ten hours. This threatened the eighthour day, and was opposed.

Proposal to let out certain work by piece or on contract to non-union shops. This threatened the existence of the unions; to force down quality and increase accidents; to make work more irregular in the shops. Also opposed.

These contentions were granted by the roads when the Government interposed. Seniority was injected into the dispute by the refusal of the men to go to work after a certain date. By seniority is

meant the preference of older employees over the newer ones, together with certain pension accumulations. The right of an older employee to "bump" a later arrival seems to be regarded as worth more than the pension. Some did not know what their pension rights were.

Seniority is now the only thing that stands in the way of settlement, and strikers say that they will never go back to work without these rights. "Such a situation," they say, "would be intoler able." They say also that they have "millions" back of them, and that they do not need to go to work for a long time. The "Big Five"-engineers, firemen, conductors, brakemen, and maintenance of ways unions-are contributing liberally for the support of the strikers.

The leading minister, a Congregationalist, is frankly and openly in sympathy with the strikers. He thinks that the responsibility for so managing things that industrial peace is possible clearly lies with the management of the roads. The great question at issue, he thinks, is not the daily wage, the eight-hour day, or the existence of the union, but the question of interrupted or seasonal employment. The daily wage is sufficient if work were constant. The irregularity of employment keeps the town constantly on its "uppers." Failure of the church and other social agencies for good is due in large measure to uncertainty of income. The contract-letting

proposal of the roads promised to increase this uncertainty and irregularity. The unions of course emphasize the danger to their organizations, but the minister is probably right. The union leaders are afraid for their jobs. There is a feeling that with a proper settlement of the troubles the unions would go out of existence.

The impatience of the public with the present war is in part due to the conviction that no one gains anything by it and that it is in no way an approach to a solution. There is in the Northwest one signal example of peace in an industry which before the war was "all shot to pieces" with radicalism, I. W. W.-ism, and sabotage. The lumber industry is at peace in the Northwest to-day largely on account of the influence of the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen, under the management of Norman F. Coleman, former college professor, Christian gentleman, and industrial statesman. They have brought into the business the principle of representation, and the entrance of the men into the problems of management and the entrance of management into the problems of the men has made peace possible through understanding. It makes profit sharing possible without calling it that and is a device to do away with the evils of absentee landlordism, so inevitable where capital is furnished by stockholders who live everywhere, as is the case with the railways.




N addition to the large loans America is making to Europe our statesmen giving advice also. Lately Governor Cox, Mr. Frank Vanderlip, and Colonel House have been more or less interviewed. They are full of warning to Europe and suggested American financial intervention.

I am not sure that they are telling all they know. Here are the plain, unvarnished facts:

We haven't any free gold for Europe; what we have is pledged as security for the Federal Reserve paper money and as security for the depositors in the member banks. I have before me a letter from the Vice-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, dated August 14, saying that the last statement of the combined liabilities of the Federal Reserve system and the bank deposits of the member banks showed that the "reserves" (that is, gold and silver) were less than fourteen per cent of such liabilities, and that the present reserves "are not higher than they should be."

Ours is not the only gold reserve in the world. Switzerland, Holland, ScanCinavia, France, and England have much gold. They hold it aloof, as they should,

instead of wasting it on a vain attempt to counteract the torrent of inflation now deluging Europe.

America believes in legitimate democracy, but she has reason to question the credentials of so-called democracies which make no attempt to keep their word. It is because Europe doubts the promise of Germany, Poland, Austria, and others to pay that their paper money is hardly worth its weight as rags. The first step in a wayward course is always the vital and tragic one; the others follow along in the same direction in spite of the protests of a weakened will to do otherwise.

It is absolutely impossible for the weak Socialistic Governments of Germany and Austria to stop issuing paper money.

The remedy, after all the dodging and side-stepping of theorists and practical politicians, is:

1. A new and strong government that will keep expenditures within income.

2. The creation of a reserve (on a gold basis) by such taxes and capital levy as may be necessary.

3. New paper currency to be issued against this reserve and redeemed when demanded.

4. The present worthless paper money to be called in and exchanged for the new currency on a fixed basis of 1,000 or 10,000 to one, as the case may be. We must start with a strong government. Czechoslovakia has pointed the way.

You may ask, "What has Germany got to make a reserve out of?" Why, export credits and the present gold reserve of the Reichsbank, amounting to around $250,000,000. That is much more than the entire gold value of the 200,000,000,COO paper marks or more in existence.

There are plenty of assets in all these countries which can be used for reserves, but there is no use trying to use them until the amount of paper money is limited.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »