loose with its self-respect or put obligation. The President owes it prudence above honor. "There are fundamental principles of life that a people must ever stand ready to fight for and to die for lest they know the spiritual degeneracy that leads so inevitably to National decay. "But I would be untrue to myself, as well as to the State and the Nation, if I concluded this brief address without going upon record in absolute and unalterable opposition to our whole military system. "We have builded in New York as best we might, but there has never been a time when I did not feel that we are building on sand. "The one solid foundation upon which America's safety may be rested is instant and complete recognition of the great principle that the National defence is an obligation that rests upon every citizen."-From a speech by Governor Charles S. Whitman. CALL THE GREATEST MEN. The New York Times, an earnest supporter of President Wilson, urges him to make his cabinet nonpartisan and representative of the highest ability of the country. It says: "Because of the great part the President himself must take in the determination of policies and the direction of the public business during war, and in view of the always present possibility that he may be incapacitated by illness, the duty to fill the chief posts by appointing men of unquestioned fitness and ability becomes one of compelling to himself, since the success of his Administration in a time of great trial may depend upon it. He owes it to the people, for if, as now seems probable, they are to be called upon to bear the heavy burdens and anxieties of war, there must not be added endless alarms arising from the doubt and fear that the men at the head of affairs are unequal to their tasks and responsibilities. If we make war we must wage it, as Polonius advised, in such a way that the enemy will repent of the quarrel. But war is a business of the greatest seriousness, it demands for its direction and conduct the service of men of the first order of ability, men whose qualification may be summed up by saying that they must have the full confidence of the people. "At such a time patriotism commands that the call to duty go forth to the country's great men, equally it commands them to answer the summons by acceptance. The line of party fades from view, the people are one. Men whose experience and capacity, whose names command confidence, should sit at the President's council table. We are not ready for war, we are deplorably unready. The country's financiers are prepared, they will respond with instant service, knowing well what they have to do. The captains of industry are prepared, the material reof the country will be swiftly marshaled for war service. It is the Government itself which is unprepared, yet the Government must carry on the war. It must be with the utmost speed put in readi sources ness for the trial, and that extraordinary work can be successfully undertaken only by extraordinary men." IT WAS WAR BUSINESS. Senator Hitchcock of Nebraska, a Democratic leader, speaking in the Senate on April 4 on the war resolution and the effect on our commerce of the German submarine attacks upon ships, said that “if we acquiesce, as many suggest, in this illegal and tyrannical proclamation and decree of the German Government, about threefifths of our entire export business will cease at once." Emphasizing this fact, he said: "It would mean that at once we would be precipitated from great prosperity to acute financial and industrial distress. The great profits of mine and manufactory would immediately disappear. Present busy and thriving centers of industry would be overcrowded with the unemployed. Of our agricultural exports twothirds of our wheat, five-sixths of our hog products, six-sevenths of our cotton, seven-eighths of our beef and three-fifths of our tobacco last year were exported to these allied belligerent countries. To acquiesce in Germany's prohibition of the exportation of these agricultural products to the countries would mean bankruptcy and ruin to all these great and varied agricultural interests." What more complete refutation than the words of this Democratic leader could there be of the assertions made by Mr. Wilson's supporters during the campaign that the prosperity which all Democratic speakers boast ed of was due to the economic legislation of the Wilson administration? What stronger admission than that of Senator Hitchcock's could there be of the fact, insisted upon by all fairminded speakers, that war's demands from belligerent countries in Europe were largely responsible for this country's enormous and abnormal foreign trade for the past two years? THE NEW METHODS IN BRITISH INDUSTRY. NO RETURN TO PRE-WAR CONDITIONS. WAGES TO BE KEPT UP, BUT NO TAMPERING WITH THE OUTPUT. CA-CANNY TO BE ABOLISHED. From our London Correspondent. London, April 15, 1917. There is one thought that constantly arises in the mind of every thoughtful man in Britain today,viz., What will be the condition of trade unionism in the United Kingdom after the war? Upon the correct solution of this problem depends far more than appears on the surface, one of the results being the question of competition of British goods in United States markets, while another is the degree of fiscal reform that will be brought about. Up to the time war broke out the chief industries of this country had been controlled and restricted by a complete network of labor conditions, ranging from rates of wages and hours of work to minute rules as to what classes of operatives should be engaged on particular processes. Some of these regulations were written, while others were binding upon both masters and men by custom. The operatives regarded these rules and customs as their charter of rights and as a sacred trust to be handed down to their descendants. Indirectly the output of each factory was more or less seriously affected, and manufacturers were often greatly handicapped in their acquisition of export trade, as well as in their successful competition in the home markets, which were free to all the world. Then the war came and with it the irresistible demand for greatly increased output. The Government asked the trades unions whether they would put aside all these rules for the period of the war, promising to restore them after it ceased. The men agreed to do this, and as a result many new and enormous factories were built for engineering and allied purposes and stuffed with new machinery, nonunionists, semi-skilled men, boys, women, and girls, a condition of affairs undreamt of before the war and which would have caused strikes from one end of Britain to the other. Industry has been revolutionized, and marvels have been accomplished. The employers have discovered how to increase their output without increasing the number of skilled operatives, and at the same time how to diminish the labor cost of their products irrespective of any reduction of the rates of wages. It is estimated by experts that 15,000 or 20,000 establishments are now turning out on the average more than twice the product per operative employed, as compared with what they did before the war. From industry after industry comes the report that productivity and profits have alike so much increased that any reversion to the old state of things would be disastrous. Many employers say they will never revert to pre-war labor conditions with all their restrictions and harassing rules. On the face of it, it seems improbable, if not impossible, that prewar conditions can, or will be, restored. They would not fit the new machines, the new organization of the establishments, the new processes, the new classes of operatives, the new intensity of production, and particularly the new rates of wages. It has been well said that "restoration could not be effected without undoing the new industrial revolution, and in face of so great a national loss and of the operatives who would have to be turned out and of their sympathizers in other social circles, no Government would try to carry out the pledge." A proposal for a settlement has been put forward by an expert authority in the London Times, on the basis of a settlement which will secure to the wage-earners what they have really at heart, and at the same time allow to the managers of industry that freedom of initiative and power of direction which is indispensable to industrial progress. He adds significantly: "Such a new settlement will not be possible unless it is recognized that national efficiency is a necessary condition. of genuinely securing the interests both of the employers and of the wage-earners, and compatible with obtaining the utmost results for both." The fundamental requirements of the workers are: A guaranty against involuntary unemployment, security against a reduction of the standard rate, a share in deciding the conditions in which they work, a right to progressive improvement in wages, a higher status for labor in the industrial world, and freedom to take or quit employment as they choose, with the absolute right to strike. The employers, on the other hand, seek protection against limitation of the workman's output, freedom to put any operative to any kind of work, and the right to lock out. The first condition of industrial peace under a new charter is that the Government should prevent unemployment by a systematic rearrangement of the works and orders of departments and local authorities over each decade in such a way as to keep the national wage total approximately level from year to year. Also a guaranty to the trade unions of £1 a week for every member for whom the employment exchanges are unable to find work. It is also suggested there should be a precise standard rate of wages either uniform throughout the country for each class of work or varying according to exactly delimited geographical districts; together with other rules. These proposals involve large concessions to labor and in return labor is asked frankly to abandon all deliberate restriction in individual output and the engagement of any person for any job whatever. If a settlement is effected is effected on broad statesmanlike lines, British manufacturers and exporters will have a new lease of life granted to them. It will be an infusion of new and vigorous blood into an old body Without some such arrangements the future of British industry is dark and ominous. F. C. CHAPPELL. THE VITAL NEED. Leslie's Weekly voices one of the most urgent needs of the hour when it says: "Face to face with war our vital need is not for men or ships or ammunition or money, but for proper men to direct the proper organization and mobilization of every instrument and means by which war is waged. Our immediate war strength is only a beginning. Little immediate damage can be inflicted upon us by our enemy. But for the months and years to come the question of the handling of our resources is of fundamental importance. The present Presidential Cabinet was selected under the old and evil practices of partisan politics. We have no word of complaint against the President for following precedents. But this present world war is not fought by precedents. In every nation already in the struggle party politics have been cast aside and men selected to organize and lead because they have records of accomplishments. "Shall America repeat the criminal mistakes of the past when men, incompetent even in times of peace, were allowed to remain in cabinets and at the heads of bureaus until complete mental and physical breakdown necessitated their withdrawal, or shall we go forward steadily, swiftly, confidently, under the lead of men whose strength will confuse our enemy even while their superfor ability prepares and distributes our resources that in the end we may put forth our efforts in such a way that America shall win grandly and nobly? The retention of the present Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels, and the present Secretary of War, Newton D. Baker, augurs little but disaster and distress to their country. There are men in private life today who have filled cabinet positions and other government positions of importance as few men have ever filled places of the first trust. Shall they be left idle, their splendid brains and experience wasted while America bleeds and suffers through executive impotence? "If the President will recognize that he has not one day to lose in calling men of supreme ability to the head of the country's army, its navy, its industrial affairs, its financial interests, in short, every service the proper organization of which is essential to victory he will do his country the greatest good it is in his power to do and save this Union such suffering as it has not seen within its borders these fifty years." THE RE-READING OF ADAM SMITH. By Roland Ringwalt. While it is by no means clear that every intelligent man reads Adams Smith it is conceded that every ining world has heard of him. telligent man in the English-speakFor a century and more he has been held up by free traders as a master thinker of political economy, and what is more to the purpose the men who, like Henry C. Carey, broke away from Smith to become protectionists, never forget their early deference for their old master. Carey generally quotes Smith to differ with him, but always quotes him as a man of knowledge and judgment. A man who long after his death finds new editors and new biographers, is not a inan of small calibre. It may be unusual to compare an economist with a novelist, but there is a point of likeness between Adam Smith, writer of the "Wealth of Nations" and Walter Scott, author Ruskin of the Waverley novels. found architectural errors in "Ivanhoe," and pointed them out to studious readers; Carlyle drew a picture of Cromwell unlike that in "Woodstock;" learned historians have gravely put forth their reasons for dissenting from this or that view expressed by Scott. All these criticisms show his conspicuous place among novelists. If he made a statement about the monastic system of Scotland, or the Covenanters, or the Highland uprising in 1715, the dissenter feels that he must |