Vol. 88 No. 3

Admiral Brownson's

The facts respecting the resignation Resignation of Admiral Brownson, so far as we can gather them from the published correspondence, are as follows: It has long been a question both in this and other countries whether hospital ships should be under the command of military or medical experts. The President, who is Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, decided that hospital ships in this country should be under the command of the medical expert. This decision was issued December 12, 1906; after it was made Admiral Brownson was appointed Chief of the Bureau of Navigation and entered on his duties. Whether he knew of the decision at that time the public is not informed. sent either to the President or to the Secretary of the Navy a letter stating his reasons for thinking the decision prejudicial to the service. This letter has not been made public. The decision, how ever, was not rescinded, and he there upon resigned. The ground of his resignation was thus stated by him:

He

It is absolutely essential that I should have the confidence of the service at large, as well as that of higher authority. The efficiency of the fleet can only be maintained when the officers and men feel that the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation has the confidence of the Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy, and when a strong military spirit exists in the service. Anything that shows a lack of confidence, or that tends to break down this military spirit, which has been the safeguard and principal asset of the navy since its beginning, can but impair such efficiency.

His resignation was accepted, and another person was appointed in his place. This should have ended the incident, but it did not. A little over a week later the President wrote to the Secretary of the Navy a letter, which has since been given to the public, in which he severely castigated Admiral Brownson

$3 a year 10с. а сору

for "tendering his resignation because he did not agree with the President and the Department regarding an order issued before he came into the Bureau by the Secretary of the Navy as to the control of the hospital ships," and implying that the cause of this resignation was "personal pique, wounded vanity, or factional feeling on behalf of some particular Bureau or organization." He also took this occasion to rebuke sharply unnamed navy officers for criticising the Department either directly or by "supplying sensational material to some service or non-service newspaper." If Admiral Brownson had refused to issue orders of his superior officer and resigned to avoid doing so, he might properly be called to account for the failure, though even in that case he would have been entitled to be heard in his own defense. But neither his letter nor the President's indicates any such refusal. And if he differed from the Administration on what he regarded as a matter of vital importance to the well-being of the navy, we fail to see why he should not resign and leave that policy to be carried out by those who believed in it. It is certain that he ought not to be publicly rebuked for such resignation without being heard. in his own defense, and that unworthy motives ought not to be imputed to him without evidence to sustain the imputation, and no such evidence has been given to the public. course has created a widespread sympathy for Admiral Brownson, and, by raising a personal issue, has had the effect to obscure the real and important issue respecting the administration of hospital ships.

The President's

The Outlook has already. Hospital Ships expressed its conviction. that hospital ships should be under the command of a medical, not of a naval,

expert. A second letter of the President to the Secretary of the Navy confirms this opinion. He states that certain ships in the British, German, Japanese, and Italian navies have already been commanded by medical officers-sometimes fleet surgeons, sometimes Red Cross surgeons; that at the close of the Civil War in 1865 hospital boats were placed exclusively under the control of the medical department; that in the SpanishAmerican War certain specified hospital ships were placed under the command of army surgeons; that any other course in time of war results in very serious if not disastrous consequences; that a hospital ship commanded by a navy officer cannot claim neutrality; that the naval officer is strongly tempted to violate neutrality and use his ship for military purposes, and several instances are given in which this has been done. On the main issue we believe the common sense of the country will be with the President. We regret very much that the irritable tone of his letter respecting Admiral Brownson will make the carrying out of this policy more difficult. It should be added that Admiral Brownson has made the best possible defense to the President's charge by maintaining absolute and unbroken silence.

The Supreme Court Railway Liability of the United States to Employees has decided that the recent Act of Congress rendering interState common carriers liable for injuries to their employees is unconstitutional; but this decision is by no means so discouraging to those who believe in the essential justice of such legislation as certain of the newspapers would have their readers believe. This law provides that any common carrier engaged in inter-State commerce" shall be liable to any of its employees" for such injuries; that "the fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery where his contributory negligence was slight and that of the employer gross in comparison;" and that "all questions of negligence and contributory negligence shall be for the jury." The two main

Constitutional objections to this act were: (1) That the clause of the Constitution giving the Federal Government power to regulate commerce between the States does not confer any power to regulate the relations between the employer and the employed; (2) that the clause of the statute giving a right of recovery to" any employee" is unconstitutional because it extends to employees who might be engaged in employment having no interState relations, as in a factory or workshop within the State or on a local trolley line owned by an inter-State railway but doing no inter-State business. The Court are unanimously of the opinion that the power of the Federal Government extends only to inter-State commerce and to those employees who are engaged in inter-State commerce. Judges White, Day, and Moody are of the opinion that in the exercise of that power it may regulate the relations of employer and employed in so far as the latter are engaged in inter-State commerce. Judge Peckham expresses doubt, and Judges Fuller and Brewer are noncommittal upon that point; Judges White, Day, Peckham, Fuller, and Brewer hold that as the statute is worded it endeavors to hold the inter-State railway liable for all injuries inflicted on employees, whatever their employment, and is therefore unconstitutional; and Judge Moody dissents on the ground that the law is Constitutional so far as relates to those employees who are engaged in interState commerce, and the Court can and should make the discrimination, because it should assume that Congress intended such discrimination. The net result is that the only principle absolutely decided is that Congress has no power to render an inter-State railway liable for injuries. to employees not engaged in its interState bus s; but the indications are that it would hold that Co power to render it liable to employees as are engaged in its inter-State business, and Senator Knox has already introduced a new bill providing for such liability "to any person employed by such carrier in such commerce while such employee is engaged therein." The present law has been adjudged unconstitutional, not because the fundamental.

ss has the

principle embodied in it is wrong, but because it has not been expressed with what the Court regards as necessary limitations.

of Railways

Those who re

The Practical Regulation garded the Hep burn Act, giving larger powers to the Inter-State Commerce Commission, as a destructive measure aimed at the prosperity of the railways, will find in the twenty-first annual report of the Commission good ground for declaring the law to be ineffective. The law has not destroyed the railways; the Commission has not wrought disaster. The Commission, indeed, more than once testifies that it has found the carriers disposed to co-operate with it. The enormous amount of work involved in the duties of the Commission may be faintly indicated by some figures from the report. During the year there were over five thousand complaints; of these the 415 formal complaints related directly to 2,236 carriers; 359 petitions for reparation have been served on 2,500 carriers. This involved more than fifteen thousand letters and notices, besides general correspondence—the number of letters have averaged 218 for each working day. At the 276 hearings, 35,000 pages of testimony were taken. Of informal complaints there were over four thousand, as compared with about five hundred in 1905. With the Commission have been filed over two hundred thousand tariff publications and about four hundred thousand notices of concurrence. There have been 171 cases involving over seven hundred violations of the statute regarding safety appliances alone. On the whole, the Commission reports great improvement in transportation coitions. A great many cases have En settled without resort to the Commission. The facilities of the carrier still lag far behind the general commercial develop ment of the country. The one suggestion by the Commission regarding the fixing of rates is that the Commission be given authority to prohibit advance of rates without a hearing. This is a subject too big to be discussed here. The suggestion is notable, how

ever, and is not without the support of significant facts. The decisions of the courts during the year have almost uniformly supported the Commission. They have established these principles: That complaint should be made, first, not to a court, but to the Commission; that the findings of fact on the part of the Commission are to be regarded as prima facie true; and that it may be reasonable to require a railway to render a particular service at a loss. There are other interesting court decisions cited. The Commission is engaged in the huge task of preparing a avoid complications and contradictions in rate schedules. Apart from the question of rates, the Commission's work has been multiform. It has been engaged in establishing uniformity for bills of lading, for classification of merchandise, and for a system of accounts; in conducting investigations— specifically into the express companies, into the transportation of coal and oil, and into the affairs of the Union Pacific; in considering peculiar cases involving passes; in the study of safety devices; in the enforcement of the law for safety to employees; and in recording accidents. In protecting property, legislation in regulation of inter-State commerce has made great advance. In protecting life it is shamefully defective. record of casualties on trains in the United States is, as the Commission says, regarded by conservative judges as "a world-wide reproach to the railroad profession in America." Accidents are increasing in a way that is enough to alarm the most phlegmatic. the most phlegmatic. In 1905, 350 passengers were killed in train accidents; in 1906 the number fell to 182; in 1907 it shot up to 410. The total number of passengers and employees killed in 1907 on the railways by all causes was five thousand; the total injured was over seventy-six thousand. The question whether such slaughter should increase ought not to be left to be determined by the railways. the railways. Even if it is cheaper to kill people than to install safety appliances and establish discipline that will save their lives, the Government should exercise its authority for the protection of citizens. We hope that Congress will

The

establish a Bureau of Railway Accidents, under some department of the Federal Government, that will have the same kind of power concerning safety in travel that is exercised now by the Public Service Commissions of the State of New York, which have the authority to investigate accidents and to order remedies.

The general public demand Emergency for an emergency currency Currency and for some immediate simple and effective Federal legislation to provide such a currency has been recognized by the introduction in the United States Senate of a new currency bill by Senator Aldrich, of Rhode Island. This bill, if enacted into law, will enable any National bank, which already has a bond-secured circulation of not less than fifty per cent and a cash surplus of not less than twenty per cent of its capital stock, to issue additional circulation based upon what are generally known as approved savings bank securities. The Comptroller of the Currency, the Treasurer of the United States, and the Secretary of the Treasury are to constitute a board to decide whether business conditions justify the issuance of this emergency circulation by the bank or banks which have the necessary securities, and to determine the time of issue and fix the amount. Except that the total amount of National bank notes issued by any given bank, whether secured by United States bonds or by the special collateral, shall not exceed the amount of the unimpaired capital and surplus of the bank, and except further that this new emergency circulation shall at no time exceed $250,000,000 for all the National banks of the country, discretionary powers are left with the United States Comptroller, the United States Treasurer, and the Secretary of the Treasury for the regulation of the new issue. Senator Aldrich's bill defines the general character of the State, municipal, and railway bonds which shall form the basis of this emergency circulation. A tax of six per cent upon the notes thus issued is imposed, which it is believed. will lead the banks to retire this special circulation as soon as the emergency is

passed.

It is quite apparent that when a bank cannot earn six per cent upon its emergency notes it will not continue them at a loss. The notes are to be guaranteed by the Government, and will in all respects correspond in character and appearance to the present National bank notes. So far Senator Aldrich's bill seems to have been received with approval by both bankers and merchants and other business men. We include farmers in the term business men, since they, particularly in the West, have need of special amounts of currency at special seasons of the year. The only criticism of any moment which has been so far made on the measure is that it may possibly give an artificially high market value to the bonds which are selected as the security for the emergency circulation. The same objection, however, is made to the present bond-secured National bank currency, as it is undoubtedly true that Government bonds could not be sold to the general investor, bearing the low rate of interest they do when purchased by the banks as a basis for bank notes.

Advantages of the Aldrich Plan

That

The Outlook has already at some length expressed its views of the form that Federal financial legislation should take. It has pointed out that there are two objects to be attained by such legislation. First, an immediate remedy for emergencies; and, second, a possible permanent remodeling or improvement of our banking and currency system. The entire country recognizes the emergency which it has to meet practically twice every business year. this emergency was greatly magnified during the months of October, November, and December last has misled some people into thinking that the commercial difficulties involved may not occur again for a period of years. As a matter of fact, they occur every spring and every autumn. In the spring merchants, manufacturers, and farmers are buying stocks of goods, raw materials, seeds, implements, and other merchandise necessary to their business. In the autumn the farmers of the great West are selling their crops, cattle, and hogs. For these trans