As a matter of fact, we are now engaged in a great National debate on our future policies, and, because no decision has yet been reached, the actions of Congress have been in decisive, full of turmoil and aggravation.

During the just ended session of Congress over 26,000 bills were introduced in the House; in the Senate nearly 7,500. On the House side over 1,200 of these proposed pieces of legislation were favorably reported; on the Senate side something over 1,000. From all this about 300 public laws have been enacted. How were these passed? How do they affect the various political parties in the present campaign?

As regards campaign material, the legislation passed by the recent session of Congress will be found wanting. Any claims to it by Republicans, Democrats, or Progressives are sure to be disputed. The Democrats claim much, because, a majority of the House, their efforts at tariff reform were frustrated by the Republicans in the Senate. For campaign material the Democrats have relied chiefly upon their attempted tariff legislation. It has doubtless given them much material. But the effort has been crude enough to elicit this reproof from one of their own party exponents, the New York "Times:"

The tariff schedules should be revised. They must be revised. But it was chiefly with an eye to campaign effect that the Democrats of the House prepared bills which they knew the President would veto. Duties are not lowered in that way. Nothing is done in that way save to provide material for campaign speeches. The public business is not advanced a peg, the public welfare is not promoted, by these tactics.

Republican opinion of the Democratic tariff agitation is succinctly summed up by the South Bend, Indiana, “Tribune" (Rep.). It

says:

With the tariff . . . the one supreme desire has been to put President Taft in the hole.

Progressive opinion is expressed by the Chicago" Evening Post" (Prog.):

With Democrats in control of the House, with Progressives and Reactionaries dividing opinion in the Senate, and with the Democrats there helping first one and then the other, only to make confusion worse, what chance has there been, save in a case or two, to do anything worthy with the schedules? . . . The session has not been a success from a Progressive point of view.

Among the proposals concerning the appropriation bills none called forth sharper adverse criticism than did those inserted in

the Army Bill which elicited the President's prompt veto, namely, the limitations placed upon the President's choice of his Chief of Staff, which would have rendered ineligible Generals Wood and Funston, Colonel Goethals; and many other able officers; the provision which tied the Secretary of War's hands in dealing with army posts, the proposition to cut down the army by five regiments of cavalry, the big cut in the number of major and brigadier generals of the line, the perpetuation of the Adjutant-General's staff corps on the General Staff, and the provision with regard to detached service, which would have seriously hampered the work both of the Panama Canal engineers and of the Philippine constabulary.

The Army Bill as now passed is so good as to elicit commendation from the Secretary of War, because, first, of the consolidation effected of the quartermasters' subsistence and pay corps, "a reform which has pressed

for many years, and which will, I believe. result in much economy of effort, and in greater simplicity and efficiency in those three lines of army administration.”

But a more important item of legislation is the taking of the first step towards creating a regular army reserve. This is a most satisfactory outcome of the long contest over the length of the term of enlistment. At present, while the regiments of the regular army are kept at half strength in time of peace, there is no provision made by law for filling their ranks in case of war.

For the failure of some measures the Republicans may be held responsible, as. of course, for the tariff bills; and for the failure of other measures the Republicans "cannot be held altogether blameless," as the Philadelphia "Telegraph" points out in speaking of any lack of attempt ade to reform the currency. As is natural in a Republican paper, however, the "Telegra does not fail to pay its compliments to the Democrats with regard to their lack of action on two of the most important measures het Congress, the Immigration Bill and the I'mployers' Liability Bill. The first was "saved" in the House Committee because e iority was afraid of offending the naturalized voters of New York and other cities of th... núc seaboard." The House Committe d to report the second, "and will agai report it at the short session which i ņ the first Monday in December." For, y m Southern Democrats dominating the ny of the Committee, "nothing else coul

}

expected." Continuing, the "Telegraph" says.

These men are from States that are half a century behind the North in the character of legislation looking to better conditions for labor. In some of them children under ten years old are permitted to work all night in cotton mills.

If we may believe the "American Federationist," the Sixty-second Congress has so far been one of the best ever known as regards labor legislation. The paper quotes sixteen measures either fully enacted or advanced further than ever before. The New York "Times," however, takes exception to some of these. For instance :

The proposals to limit the issue of injunctions in labor cases and to provide a jury trial in cases of contempt of court are strictly class legislation, wanted by labor alone, and prejudicial to every interest except unionized labor.

As to the eight-hour bill itself, the "Times" complains that " it can be claimed as of general interest only in so far as it advances an eight;hour day outside of Government employ, those in Government employ being previously a favored class at the expense of the taxpayers." The provision that PostOffice employees may be unionized is characterized by the Federation of Labor as restoring them to the full rights of citizenship in the manner "written and urged" by that body.

66

Good enactments, for which party honors seem to be easy, are the Parcels Post Law (which the Syracuse " Post Standard ” (Rep.) calls "the most important constructive measure that the recent Congress can claim credit for"), the amendment to the Pure Food and Drugs Act, and the Panama Bili. The first was suggested by President Taft in a special Message, but its strenuous protagonist was Representative Sherley, in whose efforts the Democrats may feel just pride.

The Panama Bill is attacked and defended by all parties. The Democratic New York "Times" calls it "beyond dispute the most disgraceful and flagitious measure passed by Congress during this session." This for two reasons: first, because its provisions, avers the Times," are in open conflict with our treaty obligations; and, second, because, as the Washington Herald" (Ind.) also avers, "it turns out to be a subsidy enactment for the benefit of the coastwise trade."

As to the first point, we make four quotations from English, French, German, and Russian papers. The London 46 Times "

declares it to be what the British Government affirms it involves, namely, "a flagrant disregard of British treaty rights."

These rights are too plain for us to refrain from asserting them as strongly as the forms of diplomatic intercourse with a friendly nation would allow. There can be no mistake upon that head, or upon the degree of support which the Government will receive from the whole nation and the whole Empire in making protest. Should diplomacy fail to solve the controversy, a contingency we can hardly think probable, confident in the goodness of our cause, we shall unhesitatingly propose to submit the dispute to arbitration at The Hague. It is already suggested that the Government, which has hitherto prided itself upon being the foremost champion of arbitration, may refuse to go to arbitration in its own case. That is an eventuality which we refuse to contemplate unless and until it becomes imminent.

If the "Times" is a weighty exponent of British opinion, so is the Paris "Temps" of French opinion. The "Temps " declares that Great Britain, in demanding arbitration at The Hague, "will have the moral support of all the Powers which stand to gain by the treaty held to be violated." The "Temps " adds: "The only effect of President Taft's measure in which he attempts to justify the Panama Canal Bill is to prove that the bill is questionable." It further says:

Before the Act again comes up for discussion in Congress the American elections will have been held, and British diplomacy will perhaps have persuaded American statesmen of the truth of the salutary principle that honesty is the best policy.

As a rule, the old custom of American politicians at election time of twisting the British lion's tail leaves England indifferent. But this will not be the case with the Panama Canal Bill, which not only twists the lion's tail but violates a solemn treaty.

In Germany the Berlin "Vossische Zeitung "" Tante Voss," as it is affectionately called-is a newspaper intended for family reading rather than for the reading of the "man-in-the-street." Even the placid "Tante," however, is moved to something strenuous as it comments editorially on the disruption" of Anglo-American friendship, and asks ironically,

66 What has now become of Joseph Chamberlain's once cherished dream of an Anglo-Saxon alliance?" Other more violent expressions from German papers give color to the opinion of the Berlin correspondent of the New York Times," who declares that

If the Kaiser's Government were not itself sitting on the lid, the Government of the United States would be treated to some expression of

German opinion which would make British comment a whisper by comparison.

Finally, one of the most important of the Russian papers, the St. Petersburg "Novoe Vremya," has this to say concerning the Panama Bill in its relation to the alleged violation of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty :

Such is the value of the word passed by the great Republic of America. Russia is not directly interested, and, moreover, we are not signatories to the Treaty of 1901. But we have a right, and we regard it as an obligation, to point out how the Americans deal with international treaties.

The New York" American " (Dem.) takes another position. Quoting the first rule of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, it says:

It seems clear that the treaty-makers intended that the United States, party of the first part, building and owning the Canal, should adopt the rules for the control of the Canal, and that all other nations, parties of the second part, observing these rules, should be allowed to use the Canal on terms of equality.

This is also the sense of the President's Message to Congress :

The right to the use of the Canal and to equality of treatment in the use depends upon observance of the conditions of the use by the nations to whom we extended that privilege. The privileges of all nations, to whom we extended the use upon the observance of these conditions, were to be equal to that extended to any one of them which observed the conditions. In other. words, it was a conditional favored-nation treatment, the measure of which, in the absence of express stipulations to that effect, is not what the country gives to its own nationals, but the treatment it extends to other nations.

To this the American" adds:

There is no more reason why our country, owning the Canal, should concede to all nations all the rights that we enjoy than that our ships should also leave the Canal within twenty-four hours in case of war, just as the rule requires foreign ships to do.

In arbitration involving a right so vital as this, no self-respecting nation like ours could stand upon any decision of The Hague which denied to our country the rights in our Canal which England has in the Suez Canal, and the rights which only England, of all nations, now protests in us.

If it should be decided by any arbitration court that the United States had, by any treaty, deprived itself of the right to pass its own commerce free, or to remit tolls to its own vessels, then the demand of this people would be to alter the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, or to terminate it, as treaties can always be altered or terminated when necessary

Our one defender abroad on the subject of the Panama Bill seems to be the London

Nation." It admits that, on the surface, the British case against the exemption of American ships from Canal dues is exceedingly strong.

The treaty surrendered to one of the parties all its political interests for what was believed to be a guaranty of commercial rights.

The provisions of the treaty for equality of treatment "could not apply to vessels engaged in coastwise traffic and using the Canal, because only American vessels, in fact, were so engaged." The "Nation" adds:

No one ever suggested that the treaty suspends the operation of the navigation laws when the coasting trade goes through the Canal. The greater discrimination includes the less; and as the navigation laws exclude all but American ships from the coasting trade, the grievance of discrimination in tolls upon coastwise traffic would seem to be somewhat unreal. The coasting trade is already an American monopoly, and the imposition or relaxation,of dues upon it would seem to be a purely domestic affair.

Aside from these laws, the claims of the Democratic majority for the paternity of others is thus dealt with in a statement by Representative Mann, of Illinois, the Republican minority leader in the House:

Practically all of the laws of any importance passed at this session were either bills prepared in a previous Congress and left over for lack of time for their consideration, or else they were bills prepared by officials in President Taft's Administration. The laws relating to steamships are of some importance, but they were prepared by the Department of Commerce and Labor, and were Administration measures. So also was the one to establish the Children's Bureau, which was a copy of one previously reported in a prior Congress, and which passed this session largely through the friendly efforts of President Taft. The white phosphorous match law was simply a copy of the Esch Republican bill in the last Congress. The three-year homestead law was put through by the efforts of Republicans in the House and the Senate and President Taft. The law providing for the quarantining of nursery stock was prepared by the Department of Agricul

ture.

In the same sense Mr. Mann points out that the parcels post provision in the PostOffice Bill was made possible only because of a parliamentary situation brought about by the Republican side of the House, and that the Republicans forced through an amendment to the Campaign Publicity Act, making it apply to primaries as well as to general elections. Also the bill creating a commission on industrial relations, "which will undertake an investigation designed to bring about peace in the industrial world, is

another measure sponsored by President Taft in a special Message."

Yet, even with this record, the session has been almost barren of constructive legislation," complains the Buffalo" Express " (Ind. Rep.). Not so, rejoins another Buffalo paper, the Enquirer" (Dem.). "Much constructive legislation, but much less constructed legislation, is the record of the second session of the Sixty-second Congress." The "Enquirer" explains:

The record of the first session . . . now seems far in the past, but it should be cited to make complete the showing of excellence. Reforming and liberalizing the rules of the House, reciprocity, the farmers' free.list, and other features of the first session rank among proofs that the lower branch of Congress was in harmony with the progressive spirit of the times..

The work of the second session was in general accord with that of the first. Genuine effort was made to relieve the people from the oppression of special privilege. The Democrats of the House, and the Senate Democrats with their Progressive allies, accomplished much . . . and attempted more which has the whole-souled approval of the country.

In the same spirit another Democratic organ, the Baltimore "Evening Sun," thus eulogizes the Democrats. They have reason, it declares," to look back with pride and satisfaction to the record of this session. They have... fought a good fight and kept the faith. They faced the work of the session in a new spirit and with a new sense of responsibility."

There were some stumblings and an occasional relapse into old ways, but for the most part they were free from the timidity, the vacillation, the political cowardice and opportunism that have so often exposed them as a minority to the ridicule of their opponents and to the censure of the country. They marched straight forward without twistings or turnings, and they tried honestly to redeem every promise they made to the country.

The record they have made is one of the most valuable Democratic assets in this campaign.

At the beginning of the Sixty-second Congress the Democrats decided that they would show up the extravagances of Republican rule for the last sixteen years." Nine committees on expenditures in the several Government departments were set to work. In addition to these nine committees, various special committees were set on the trail of the trusts. Have the nine investigationsthe steel and other investigations—started by the Democrats produced the expected campaign material? This seems a sore point with the average Democrat, the Republican papers

are quick to note; it is perhaps significant that in all the stump speeches inserted in the "Record" by Democratic orators little mention is made of this feature of the work of the House. The investigations have cost already $100,000 in the aggregate—with an equal amount appropriated for a continuation of various inquiries. The Washington correspondent of the New York "Tribune" declares that "not one of these investigations has produced anything which will be of aid to the Democrats in seeking control of the next House." On the other hand, another Republican paper, the Scranton “TribuneRepublican," declares that so far as the last session has been effective it has been in the way of scandals and exposures." And the Scranton paper adds :

Men get mad, begin to talk, and in the course of crimination and recrimination much washing of dirty linen takes place, and whole periods of secret conspiracy and corrupt bargainings are opened to the public view. The Lorimer investigation, the steel investigation, the campaign contribution exposure, have given the people a look-in at their Government which is only vouchsafed at long intervals.

As to appropriations, the Democratic announcement that unheard-of economies would now occur is seen in the fact that a saving of seven million dollars has actually been made from the total appropriations of the last regular session of a Republican Congress. But, to quote again the Washington correspondent of the New York "Tribune," this saving has been made "by failure to appropriate for authorized expenditures, which will result in a deficiency that must be provided for at the next session of Congress:"

two.

One way in which the saving was attempted was by granting one battle-ship instead of Concerning this the sentiment of most observers is expressed by the Minneapolis "Journal" (Ind. Rep.) when it points out that, at a time when we extend the Monroe Doctrine, the Democrats in the House refuse to grant money for battle-ships, " as if Japan or any other great Power were to be kept out of Magdalena Bay or any other post by the loud discharge of paper resolutions." To which the Brooklyn, New York, "Eagle " (Ind. Dem.) adds: "The Monroe Doctrine, with elaborations or without, is no stronger than the navy of the United States."

Other proposed economies are thus described by the "Tribune's " correspondent:

If President Taft and a Republican Senate had not stood in their way, the Democrats might

have effected a much greater saving by abolishing two of the most important bureaus in the Department of State-the Bureau of Trade Relations, and the Division of Latin-American Affairs! The plan would have badly crippled the State Department had it carried. Furthermore,

If the Democratic House majority had been sincere in their efforts to bring about greater economy, they would have acted on President Taft's recommendation to extend the civil service to include the local officers under several of the departments, and would thereby have saved about ten million dollars. This is one of several recommendations made to Congress by President Taft, based on the findings of the Economy and Efficiency Commission by which economy in Government expenditures could be effected and the efficiency of the public service increased.

But Congress thought so little of this Commission that it ruthlessly trimmed the salaries of its members, and limited its powers to matters of transacting the public business of the Government only in the several executive departments." As is well known, the Commission has been in favor of instituting the English budget system in presenting the Government's estimates of what the expenses of the various departments would be likely to be. But in the Legislative Bill a paragraph was "sneaked in " at the last moment which, it is claimed, shows the temper of the Democratic House leaders:

The regular annual estimates of appropriations and expenses of the Government shall be prepared and submitted to Congress by those charged with the duty of such preparation and submission, only in the forms as at the time are required by law, and in no other form and at no other time.

The session has been prolific of vetoes by President Taft. These affected the wool and steel tariff, the army and legislative appropriation bills, the purchase of permanent army maneuver grounds, the Dixie and Coosa River water power bills, the sales of burned timber on Indian lands, and the reimbursement of those who furnished labor and materials for work on the Corbett tunnel.

That Progressive opinion does not approve the wool veto may be indicated by the Tacoma Tribune" (Prog.):

President Taft, in explaining his veto of the wool tariff revision bill, declares that the bill was passed without ample study and investigation."

The wool schedule has been under study and investigation since September, 1909, when Mr. Taft made his famous Winona speech, in which he declared the wool schedule was "indefensible.".

President Taft has done more than all

other men in public life combined to prevent downward revision of the tariff in compliance with the pledges of the Republican platform of

1908.

In general, however, the President's vetoes, says the Buffalo Express" (Ind. Rep.). "have successfully blocked most of the attempted mischief."

The Democrats have not themselves to thank that they are not facing the country with the record of a tenure-of-office bill to break down civil service reform, a reduction in the army and an interference with promotion for political ends, a refusal to keep up the navy, and the precipitation of a period of business depression through reckless tariff-smashing.

The President emerges from the session in good condition, if we can believe the New York “Sun” (Ind.). It is true that, “* laboring under the disadvantage imposed by hostile control of the House of Representatives and a hopelessly split majority in the Senate," he has had an unusually difficult course to steer; and that, under these circumstances, "the position of the Executive has been vexatious, trying, and exposed to unusual dangers." The "Sun" further expresses its opinion :

It is to Mr. Taft's credit that he has sustained it without more concessions to the expediencies of the hour or the necessities of the political campaign in which he is engaged. He has been the President of the United States first, and an intelligent partisan second. He has not been a trimmer, nor has he sacrificed his convictions because of clamor or misrepresentation.

President Taft has made mistakes, as every President must; but his essential sincerity, modesty, good sense, and strength of character are convincingly apparent.

Another New York paper, however, the "Evening Post." does not agree with this. It does not indicate that the President has emerged from the session with enhanced prestige:

The difficulty is not simply that he had endlessly recurring differences with Congress. Some of them were perhaps unavoidable, but in them all he bore himself with a certain awkwardness. Where he was in the wrong he had not the adroitness to make his cause appear the better, and even where he was right he had no facility in evoking popular support.

"We should gain in self-respect and in the appearance of public decorum-at least, we should be less disgusted with ourselves," remarks the New York · Times" (Ind. Dem.), "if it were so ordered that, in Presidential years, Congress should finish its business and disperse on the 4th of March."