« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
July 14, 1924
the Postal Salary Bill, vetoed by President Coolidge; 2) immediate and complete independence for the Philippines and laws to improve the distressing situation in the Virgin Islands; 3) deep sympathy with the aspirations of the Irish for freedom; 4) U. S. relief for Germany; 5) denunciation of the use of the Army and Navy for exploiting weaker nations, notably Haiti, Santo Domingo, Nicaragua.
The nomination, or rather endorsement, of Senator LaFollette was speedy. The Committee on Organization presented a resolution:
"RESOLVED, That this Convention endorse the candidacy of Senator Robert M. LaFollette for President of the United States upon the platform submitted by him."
There was no nominating speech. Four "seconding" speeches in favor of the resolution were made. The flow of oratory was cut off and the resolution passed with a howl of delight. The delegates cheered, shouted.
This peculiar form of nomination betokens the idea-plan of the La Follette candidacy. The Senator is not going to abandon his title as a Republican. He, not the C. P. P. A., will enter his name with a list of electors on the ballots of various states. He, not the Convention, wrote the platform. The Convention merely echoed him. It offered itself as an acolyte to serve at his altar. The Convention submitted to his wish to act as a body of his supporters. He avoided the technical embarrassment of appearing as the nominee of the C. P. P. A. Third Party.
The Convention assented to his wish that no third party, no titular entity, be created. Even the choice of a Vice Presidential candidate to run with him was resigned by the Convention to its National Committee, which will doubtless do exactly as Mr. LaFollette orders in making its choice. "Fighting Bob" was out on his own, as an individual. Parties must bow and follow in his wake.
By exiling the Communists hopefully standing outside its fast-closed doors, the Convention aroused the antagonism of William Mahoney, who organized the recent Farmer-Labor Convention in St. Paul, which was captured by the Communists. Mr. Mahoney was actually refused a seat in the C. P. P. A. Convention, although he was a member of the C. P. P. A. National Committee -a most remarkable procedure. William Z. Foster and C. E. Ruthenberg, leaders of the Workers' Party (overground Communist organization), were
in Cleveland and issued a manifesto, declaring:
"This Convention calls itself 'progressive,' but in an economic sense it is the most reactionary political Convention held this year."
Just as the second Cleveland Convention was opening, the July issue of The American Federationist, organ of the American Federation of Labor, appeared. It contained an editorial by Samuel Gompers, evidently aimed at the C. P. P. A. Convention. Said Mr. Gompers:
"Now, as before, the average result of so-called third party adventures will be victory for reaction.
"Practically, this is what happens: The 'third party' draws from the most progressive of the other candidates. The more conservative candidate loses no votes to a 'third party' candidate.
"Thus progressive votes are divided, the progressive cause weakened.
"When Progressives divide among themselves reaction wins. History records altogether too many sad cases of this 'one foot forward and two feet backward' kind of frog-in-the-well advancement."
The strategy of Mr. LaFollette's individual stand appears significant already as an evasion of Mr. Gompers' attack on third parties.
The Convention of the Socialist Party opened in Cleveland immediately following the C. P. P. A. Convention. It was expected to endorse Mr. LaFollette's candidacy.
Here is the platform which Mr. La Follette presented to the C. P. P. A. in Cleveland, which was adopted with a roar. Unlike the Republican and Democratic platforms of some 6,000 words each, the La Follette document, in its entirety, is composed of less than 1,000 words. Excerpts are given from the prologue and peroration; the 14 planks appear in full text:
Every generation must wage a new war for freedom against new forces that seek through new devices to enslave mankind.
Under the principle of ruthless individualism and competition, that government is deemed best which offers to the few the greatest chance of individual gain.
Under the progressive principle of coöperation, that government is deemed best which offers to the many the highest level of average happiness and well-being. . .
In that faith we present our program of public service:
1) The use of power of the Federal Gov
ernment to crush private monopoly, not to foster it.
2) Unqualified enforcement of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, press and assemblage.
3) Public ownership of the Nation's water power and creation of a public superpower system. Strict public control and permanent conservation of all national resources, including coal, iron and other ores, oil and timber lands, in the interest of the people. Promotion of public works in times of business depression.
4) Retention of surtaxes on swollen incomes; restoration of the tax on excess profits, on Stock dividends, prouts undistributed to evade taxes; rapidly progressive taxes on large estates and inheritances, and repeal of exces sive tarif duties, especially on trust-controled necessities of life, and of nuisance taxes on consumption, to relieve the people of present unjust burden of taxation and compel those who profited by the War to pay their share of the War costs and to provide Lue tunds for adjusted compensation solemniy pieuged to the veterans of the World War.
5) Reconstruction of the Federal Reserve and Federal farm loan systems to provide tor direct public control of the Nation's money and credit, to make it available on fair terms to all, and National and State Legislatures to permit and promote cooperative banking.
6) Adequate laws to guarantee to farmers and industrial workers the right to organize and bargain collectively, through representatives of their own choosing, for the maintenance or improvement of their standards of life.
7) Creation of Government marketing corporation to provide a direct route between tarm producer and city consumer, and to assure farmers fair prices for their products and protect consumers from the profiteers in foodstuffs and other necessaries of life. Legislation to conduct the meat-packing industry.
8) Protection and aid of cooperative enter. prises by National and State legislation.
9) Common international action to effect the economic recovery of the world from the effects of the World War.
Pub10) Repeal of the Cummins-Esch law. lic ownership of railroads, with democrauc operation, with dehnite safeguards agaiust bureaucratic control.
11) Abolition of the tyranny and usurpation of the courts, including the practice of numtying legislation in conflict with the political, social or economic theories of the Judges. Abolition of injunctions in labor disputes and of the power to punish for contempt wi out trial by jury. Election of all Federal Judges without party designation for incu
12) Prompt ratification of the Child Labor Amendment, and subsequent enactment o a Federal law to protect children in industry. Removal of legal discrimination against women by measures not prejudicial to legislation necessary tor the protection of women and or the advancement of social welfare.
13) A deep waterway from the Great Lakes to the sea.
14) We denounce the mercenary system of foreign policy under recent Administrations in the interests of financial imperialists, oil mon opolists and international bankers, which has at times degraded our State Department from its high service as a strong and kindly intermediary of defenseless Governments to a trading outpost for those interests and concession-seekers engaged in the exploitation of weaker nations, as contrary to the will of the American people, destructive of domestic development and provocative of war. We favor an active foreign policy to bring about a revision of the Versailles Treaty in accordance with the terms of the Armistice, and to promote firm treaty agreements with all nations to outlaw wars, abolish conscription, drastically reduce land, air and naval armaments, and guarantee public referendums on peace and war.
"The Nation may grow rich in the vision of greed. The Nation will grow great in the vision of Service."
When President Coolidge made his speech to the Budget Conference of Executive Officers (TIME, July 7, THE PRESIDENCY), he used some language more congruous on the lips of a business man than a politician. Said he:
"We must reduce the Government payroll. I am satisfied that it will lead to greater efficiency. And in this same connection, I desire careful scrutiny of travel orders. Our travel expense item is too great. An order for travel should be given only when absolutely necessary. You can effect economy in this item.
"A further fertile field for economy is the item of printing and binding. I am sometimes startled at the number of Government publications which come to my attention. It cannot be that all are necessary."
Having thus struck a purely business note, he closed by turning to one of his official business men. "I will now turn this meeting over to General Lord, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. He is human. He hates to say 'No.' But he is a brave man and he does his duty without fear or favor. This nation is his debtor."
To those assembled there, it was unnecessary to say that General Lord was human. It was proved by the fact that most of them liked him, although he has a most ungracious task. To him the Chiefs of each Department, after paring off every cent from the sum on which they think their Departments can function, bring their estimates of required appropriations. General Lord lops off a good bit more. The Department Heads then estimate how they can worry along on General Lord's allowIf they feel they can't do it, they are allowed hearings. General Lord goes over the estimates with the President. Finally the approved estimates are taken to Congress. They are the only lawful estimates of the Government's needed funds. On them Congress bases its appropriations.
This manner of doing business was instituted in 1921 when the Budget Act was passed. General Charles G. Dawes was Director of the Budget for the first year. After his resignation Brigadier General Herbert Mayhew Lord, with a notable and long record in the financial affairs of the War Department, took his place and has held it since.
A grievous situation called for the institution of the Budget. The War had multiplied our public debt more than 20 times. A public debt of itself is not a bad thing, if it is not excessive. It
"ECONOMY" LORD "He is a brave man and he does his duty"
serves as a check on extravagance. Once, in 1840, we had a public debt as low as 21¢ per capita. It did not pay and the debt was increased to about $2 per capita by the Civil War. That war shot the debt up to $76 per capita, from which it was gradually reduced. From 1900 to 1917, we went along on a debt of about $10 per capita. By the year 1919, our debt was $230 per capita.
Government expenses took a similar turn, advancing tremendously. The subjoined table (in millions of dollars) shows the course of events:
Pointing to this record, the Director of the Budget, who has won himself the nickname of "Economy" Lord, exclaimed: "In three budget years we have cut the ordinary expenses of Government in half. Go tell it in the highways and byways, proclaim it from the housetops.
"The budget pruning-knife is badly worn, though still serviceable. In the three years of its active, and, as some of the people in the service term it, ruthless career, it has cut out of annual estimates $865,517,155.65. If that amaz
ing amount had been left in the estimates, as would have been the case in pre-budget days, the President would have had no warrant for recommending reduction in taxation."
THE CABINET Apology for Good Tidings
Secretary Mellon rendered his accounting for the fiscal year ending June 30. For those who like to see an improving balance sheet, the report was a pleasure. It showed a surplus of $505,366,986.31. Never before has the U. S. piled up so great an annual surplus.
Of course, this surplus of receipts over expenditures was not lying in the Treasury vaults. It was used in retiring the public debt-as an addition to the regular sinking fund provided for that purpose. The result of this application of the sinking fund and the surplus furnishes another pleasing bit of arithmetic.
June 30, 1923.. June 30, 1924..
..$22,349,707,365.36 ..... 21,250,812,989.49
$ 1,098,894,375.87 But a peculiar state of affairs had arisen on account of the recent controversy over the soldier bonus. In October, 1923, Mr. Mellon had issued pessimistic figures; the Democrats had accused the Treasury of "juggling figures" in order to forestall the bonus. Hence, when Mr. Mellon issued last week the glad news of the greatest surplus of history, he issued it with an apology:
"In dealing with figures as large as those of the Government, a small percentage change [in the receipts or the expenditures] makes a very material change in the surplus. For example, an increase of 3% in receipts and a decrease of 3% in expenditures would add over $200,000,000 to the surplus, and a similar decrease in receipts and increase in expenditures would take over $200,000,000 from the surplus.
"Comparing the estimates made in October with the actual results from the fiscal year, receipts were overestimated $32,000,000 and expenditures overestimated $208,000,000. . . . The change in the money market since the first of the calendar year was perhaps the most material factor in bringing about the increase in the actual surplus over the surplus estimated in October.
"Liberty bonds went above par and were not used in payment of foreign obligations for interest; the railroad securities heretofore acquired by the Government could be refunded at lower
interest rates by the railroads and were, therefore, paid off or purchased, and instead of a net cash outgo in the railroad account there was a net cash income, making a difference of some $120,000,000 over the earlier estimate. The above, with some other minor items, gave a net increase of actual overestimated surplus of $175,727,326.31."
Until A. D. 1836, patents* were issued in the U. S. by the President in person. He signed them, the Secretary of State signed them, the Attorney General signed them. Then they were valid patents. Between 1790 and 1836, these three officers issued 9,967 patents.
In 1836, the business of issuing patents became a bit too onerous a sideline for statesmen. The Patent Office was created and began to number the patents it issued. Between 1836 and 1893 -57 years-500,000 patents were counted out; between 1893 and 1911-18 years-another 500,000 patents were granted. Last week-13 years since the 1,000,000th patent was granted-the 1,500,000th was issued.
The man who got the 1,500,000th patent was Simon Lake, inventor and pioneer in submarine experiment. His original submarine, the Argonaut, is still in the yard of the Lake Torpedo Boat Co., of Bridgeport. His latest, No. 1,500,000, is described under SCIENCE.
Telling of its 1,500,000th, the Patent Office pointed with pride to its record:
"United States patents have been granted to American inventors for the telegraph, the telephone, the sewing machine, the vulcanization of rubber, the moving picture, the phonograph, the incandescent light, the typewriter, the automobile, the sleeping car, the electric car, the linotype machine, the vacuum cleaner, the aeroplane and the leading features that make modern radio possible.
"Copies of all these patents are on file in the Patent Office and form the permanent record for search purposes for use of the examining corps to determine novelty of applications for patents. Copies are also kept in stock for the purpose of sale so that they may be available to the public, practically at cost. Such copies number about 50,000,000 and occupy about 20 linear miles of single shelving in the Patent Office, over 200,000 copies of such patents being sold each month for 10¢ each."
The U. S. Patent Office is a subdivision of the Department of the Interior.
Two states have taken action on the proposed Constitutional Amendment* giving Congress power to regulate or prohibit child labor. Arkansas ratified it, Georgia rejected it.
Before the Georgia Assembly went
HOKE SMITH "He does all the things that become a man"
many speakers, among them ex-Senator Hoke Smith,† objecting to the Amendment as an invasion of States' Rights. It was defeated by a vote of 170 to 3. The State Senate acted similarly.
In Georgia, 89,000 children between the ages of 10 and 15 years-20.8% of that age-group-are workers. Boys of 12, if orphans, are permitted to work in cotton mills. There is a maximum 10hour day; and night work is permitted. A bill is before the Legislature (and reported likely to be passed) which will prohibit the employment of children under 141⁄2 and forbid night work for those under 16. Nevertheless, Georgia was determined to have no national interference by "long-haired agitatists." Said the Resolution which was adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Repre
*Passed by two-thirds vote of the House, in April; of the Senate, in May; must be ratified by 36 states to become effective.
sentatives and the Senate of the State of Georgia, in general assembly met, that the said Amendment to the Constitution of the United States be not, and the same is hereby not ratified, but is rejected, because said proposed Amendment would destroy parental authority and responsibility throughout America, would give irrevocable support to a rebellion of childhood which menaces our civilization, would give Congress not only parental authority but all State authority over education, would eviscerate the States and change our plan of government from a Federal Union to a consolidated Republic and create a centralized Government far removed from the power of the people.
The State of Georgia has neither the right nor the power to give to Congress the power to limit. regulate or prohibit the labor of Georgians under 18 years of age, or of any age, because such power reëstablishes in America a system of slavery with public ownership substituted for private ownership. and would place Congress in control of every home in the land between parent and child.
State Representative McCorsey said much the same thing in more vigorous idiom: "I don't want any more monkeying with the buzz-saw by that bunch in Washington. We don't mix nohow. We weren't born under the same régime and don't drink out of the same bottle. We don't want them interfering with our affairs."
IMMIGRATION Less Pushing
One year ago, last July 1, eleven vessels brought 11,482 passengers, most of them immigrants, into New York Harbor. Ellis Island was jammed with humanity. A year later, this July 1, nine ships came in, bringing 1,214 passengers, none of them immigrants. Ellis Island was idle.
The difference was a difference in immigration laws. The superseded law placed a premium on pushing in as soon as the clock struck twelve for the beginning of a new immigration year. The present law says: "Get a certificate before you start and come over at your leisure." The result is less rush, less hardship, less danger.
Incidentally, immigration certificates were not ready in time for this July 1, so absolutely no immigrants came. The Cleveland of the United American Line brought the nearest thing of the kind, "several thousand birds, a tapir, a bluefaced mandrill, other monkeys, some squirrels and three makis . . . funnylooking animals which are neither raccoons nor monkeys and which make sounds like a turkey."
At Lyon, French city of which Premier Herriot is Mayor, was held the eighth plenary Assembly* of the International Federation of League of Nations Societies. All countries, including the U. S. and Germany, were represented.
During the deliberations, a friendly tiff occurred between a Japanese delegate, M. Sugimura, and an American delegate, Dr. Clyde A. Duniway, but was amicably settled. Count von Bernstorff, onetime German Ambassador to the U. S., made a highlyflavored speech in support of "United States of Europe" and spiced it with numberless illogical comparisons and deductions. But the most soul-disturbing event was the arraignment of the Haitian policy of the U. S. (TIME, July 7).
Dantes Bellegarde, Negro diplomat, Haitian leader and orator, and onetime Haitian Minister to Paris, stigmatized the U. S. occupation of Haiti as unjustifiable and productive of great harm to the Haitian people. Dr. C. A. Duniway, head of the League of Nations Non-Partisan Association, defeated a Bellegarde resolution calling for the withdrawal of American "devil dogs" (Marines) from Haiti by substituting one of his own, which reiterated U. S. Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes' statement that the U. S. would withdraw from Haiti as soon as internal affairs made such a step possible. The resolution was carried and was satisfactory to the U. S. and Haitian delegates.
M. Bellegarde, however, took an
*The Assembly is unofficial and is composed of societies for propagating the League faith.
early opportunity to plunge into a dissertation on the Haitian question and to appeal for "justice and liberation." The assembly cheered him to the echo and several delegates cried "Bravo!"
Dr. Duniway stoutly defended his country and declared that occupation was justified by the disorder in Haiti. He concluded thus: "Santo Domingo is free, and Haiti will be free when she has satisfied the conditions and has shown that she is capable of selfgovernment. Our attitude is one of benevolent serving-not our Own cause, but Haiti's."
(British Commonwealth of Nations)
U. S. Accepts
At Abergwyfni, Wales, the Premier, expressing pleasure at the acceptance by the U. S. of an invitation to the Premiers' Conference (TIME, July 7), said he did not expect the U. S. to help Europe solve her problems just now. "She is too wise to do that, but there is no great nation on the face of the earth, no nation like America, mighty in the equality of its people, powerful in its wealth, that can isolate itself from the others. . . ."
A meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defense was summoned at London to consider the building of a subChannel tunnel to connect Britain and France.
Premier MacDonald took the chair; among those present were high naval, military and air force officers, ex-Premiers Balfour, Asquith, George, Baldwin.
The result of the meeting was not made public, but it was understood that the high officers of the services were against building the tunnel because of the impossibility of defending it during time of war.
Some 400 members of Parliament, in favor of the project, were pressing for debate of the subject in the Commons and there was a general feeling abroad that the Imperial Defence Committee was not to be allowed to kill the scheme.
Although the existence of the tunnel would cut the cost of transportation to and from the Continent, and reduce the time taken to travel the distance between London and Paris, critics of the project averred:
1) That the building of the tunnel
Recently Premier Herriot returned to Paris from visits to London and Brussels (TIME, July 7). He declared that the British Premier and himself were entièrement d'accord. He "enthused" serenely about the proposed Premiers' Conference, which (commencing July 16) is to settle the means of putting into effect the Experts' Plan.
As Premier MacDonald had invited Premier Herriot to confer at Chequers Court and as it had been decided to hold the Premiers' Conference in London, the matter of inviting the other Nations was left to the British Premier.
Premier MacDonald forthwith invited the Premiers of all the interested Powers to attend the Conference and incautiously made a suggestion to the effect that a new committee should be empowered to determine default by It Germany under the Experts' Plan. was later declared that the new committee suggested was the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was construed to mean a transference of power from the Reparations Commission to the League of Nations.
The critics in France raised a hue and cry. The Reparations Commission consists of a French, British, Italian and Belgian member; but M. Barthou, the French member, is Chairman, and in that capacity has a casting vote which permits France to control the Commission, Belgium being completely
under her thumb, in so far as reparations are concerned. The Opposition was not going to see the valuable power of France in the Commission destroyed. They declared that Premier Herriot must have been a party to the British suggestion, because he had stated that he was d'accord with the British Premier; they declared that he was therefore guilty of neglecting French in
In Britain, the summary of semiofficial reports and press editorials established the fact that Premier MacDonald had proposed a new body to consider possible German default as a mere suggestion, that he had not thought of prejudicing the issues to be discussed at the Conference. It was thought, however, that the Premier was guilty of an exceedingly clumsy piece of diplomacy.
At all events, Premier Herriot was forced by the Opposition press to recede from his former position and to declare that he was not d'accord with the British suggestion and, as the result of a special meeting at the Quai d'Orsay (French Foreign Office), the Premier decided to send to all Governments invited to the Premiers' Conference an explanation of the French viewpoint.
Despite this, Premier Herriot's political adversaries promised to make things hot for him in the Senate and Chamber of Deputies. It was even asserted that his fate depended upon whether exPremier Briand would decide that the time had come for him to be Premier for the ninth time. His Cabinet, never in a secure position, began to wobble.
An illustration of the Government's insecure position is contained in the following list of defeats which Premier Herriot has had to endure since the elections (TIME, May 19):
His candidate for the Presidency, exPremier Paul Painlevé, defeated; le Sénateur Gaston Doumergue elected. His candidate for the Presidency of the Senate, le Sénateur Bienvenu-Martin, defeated; le Sénateur Justin de Selves, Poincaréist, elected. His candidate for the Presidency of the Army Committee of the Chamber of Deputies defeated; le Député Maginot, Minister of War under Poincaré, elected. His policy of withdrawing the French Embassy to the Vatican (TIME, June 16) and that of granting amnesty to political exiles and prisoners were met with strong opposition in the Senate. Finally, exPremier Poincaré gained a point of vantage by being unanimously elected a member of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Senate.
SIR FREDERICK FIELD, K.C.B. He was courteous (See opposite page)
The check is not popular in France. Frenchmen prefer payments to be made in cash no matter how large they are. If a merchant be persuaded to accept one, he can be seen a few minutes later closing his shop and scurrying off to the bank upon which the check is drawn; he never by any chance deposits it in his own bank-if he has one. This is partly due to the fact that French law only allows him 24 hours to make legal declaration of default on checks and commercial bills. The Government has proposed, in order to help avoid further inflation, to popularize the check by passing a new law.
daisy from a visit to Paris. This is the impression he got of France:
"The Herriot Government really desires to come to an understanding with Germany and carry out the Experts' Report. And even if M. Herriot is unable to continue in power, France will still work toward an understanding with Germany, since the bulk of the French, especially the peasantry, are weary of Poincaréism.
"It is inconceivable that a Government composed of parties of the Right should regain ascendancy ir France. To be sure, M. Poincaré is still strong and is intriguing to regain power, as is shown especially by the exploitation of the story that Germany was arming to attack France. But no French Government can stand without Socialist support now and the French Socialists lean strongly toward the Left.
"While I was in Paris, I talked with M. Herriot about the Ruhr evacuation and the release of the German Ruhr prisoners. From this talk and talks with many other Frenchmen I derived the impression that the feeling in France toward Germany is far friendlier than before. If M. Herriot stays in power, complete evacuation of the Ruhr is bound to come soon. Already he has promised economic evacuation.
"Serious difficulties still lie in the path of ultimate evacuation, since France insists upon first receiving payments from Germany based on the Experts' Report. Nevertheless, evacuation will occur unless the German Nationalists win such success as to make the French again distrustful. The French trust the present German Government's sincerity.
"Acceptance of the Allied military control note by Germany made an excellent impression in France. Had the note not been accepted, M. Poincaré and the other extreme French Nationalists would have been strengthened."
Join the League?
At Lyon, where he represented Germany in the League of Nations Societies Conference, Count von Bernstorff, onetime German Ambassador to the U. S. (1908-17), said that Germany was not sentimentally interested in the League, hinted that his country would like to join but feared a rebuff from France or Britain or both.
Said he: "There are four remaining difficulties-two on each sidebetween Germany and the other