SENATOR MASON, of Illinois, has announced his intention of introducing a bill into congress to protect the interests of the public in labor conflicts like the present coal strike. The bill is to empower the government in such cases to authorize the attorney-general to appoint a receiver for the property, and continue the business until laborers and mine owners can come to terms by arbitration, or otherwise.

Simultaneously with this comes a pamphlet from a prominent member of the Suffolk, Mass., bar, arguing from a common law basis that, when property owners so use their property as to create a public interest in its administration, the public has a constitutional right to participate in the management, under certain conditions. In support of this, he cites the opinion of Chief Justice Waite:

"Property becomes clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created."

All this shows the tendency public opinion is taking and is sure to take if corporations insist upon acting in defiance of the public interest, upon the theory that "God, in His infinite wisdom," has put the whole matter into their hands. The altogether more prevalent notion, and the one that is sure to assert itself with increasing effectiveness, is that "God, in His infinite wisdom," has given control of this matter to the people, and they will proceed to exercise it through various forms of caustic legislation.

IN THE RETIREMENT of Hon. Andrew D. White as ambassador to Germany, American diplomacy loses one of its strongest representatives. Mr. White combines scholarship, patriotism and devotion to public service in an unusual degree. He not merely represented in Germany the best of American character, and conspicuously guarded all American interests, but he exercised a positive influence

over the German court. He was the real soul of the Hague peace conference.

Hon. Frederick W. Holls, secretary of the American delegation to the peace conference, says that the fact that the peace conference at the Hague did not result in a fiasco was due entirely to the energy and influence of Ambassador White, whom he designates as the "greatest living diplomat." He says that when the conference met it was prac tically a foregone conclusion that it should be only a courtesy meeting; that the chief concern was to save it from being ridiculous. But Mr. White inspired the American delegation with the idea that it must be taken seriously; that the idea of arbitration and certain other features must be prepared and presented with seriousness and force by the American representatives; and through his influence that was done. It became observable, within the first few days, that a change was coming over the assembled delegates, the veering of being towards the American view, and ultimately the position taken by the American representatives became the accepted position of the others. Whatever there was of usefulness in that conference, and in the arbitration commission resulting from it, Mr. Holls insists, is due to the wisdom, tact, influence and earnestness of Ambassador White.

IN "AMERICAN INDUSTRIES" for September, Mr. David M. Parry, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, discusses the question: "Will the Arbitrary Eight-hour Work-day Do?" The special measure Mr. Parry is discussing is the proposition to compel all who produce any kind of supplies for the United States government to adopt the eight-hour system. He does not oppose the eight-hour idea, but points out that this particular proposition would subject the firms which do work for the government to an eight-hour system, while their competitors would be working ten hours, which he insists would be a heavy handicap. The folowing paragraph represents the broad, fair and catholic spirit which pervades the article throughout:

"I hold above all things in connection with this measure that the labor interests of the United States, as far as they are associated with the manufacturing industries, should take us into their confidence and not try to force a bill through congress without consulting our mutual interests. If the proposed bill is against our own interests, we should naturally be expected to oppose the proposition and organized labor should not feel aggrieved over it. If the trades have any confidence in the employers of this country, why should they not ask our advice in the preparation of such a measure?"

If employers generally would take this attitude, the industrial question would very soon lose its acrimonious and belligerent element and become a matter of real economic discussion. Mr. Parry is pre-eminently right in asking that the laborers consult with the employers regarding proposed legislation, but this can only come when the employers are willing to do likewise. It is gratifying that a man with such liberal views should be president of the National Association of Manufacturers.

IT IS AN INTERESTING study in editorial ethics to observe the opposite uses to which certain journals will put the same argument, according to the topic. Here is an illustration from the New York Times. When talking on the tariff it makes use of the same argument to prove the opposite result when talking on trusts. Here are two instances only a few days apart. Replying to a remark of Senator Fairbanks, of Indiana, to the effect that the industrial depression of 1893 was due to the tariff policy of the Cleveland administration, it says:

"This is an exhibition of mental and moral pauperism. It shows a mind empty of living political ideas. . . . It reveals a moral sense shriveled up and deadened, because the utterance is outrageously and notoriously false. No financial disaster or industrial paralysis resulted from the enactment of the Wilson tariff in 1894. The country was already suffering from financial disaster and business alarms occasioned by the Sherman silver coinage act of 1890."

The fact that the depression began in 1893 and the Wilson bill was not enacted until 1894 was used as an argument to prove that the Wilson tariff was not the cause. Just as if the expectation of the Wilson bill did not exercise

its full effect in anticipation, which nobody knew better than the Times. A few days later the Times had occasion to criticise President Roosevelt's utterances on the trust question, and here shows a thorough familiarity with the principle that the fear that a change of policy is coming is quite as destructive as the change itself:

"Experience has taught us that it is fear of interference with business rather than the actual fact of interference that brings bad times and stagnation. The change in our political system Mr. Roosevelt advocates is so momentous and grave that no man could foretell what would happen under its working. Want of confidence in the future would deter capital from making commitments, the risks of business ordinarily taken would be declined, few contracts would be made save those absolutely necessary, mills and factories would greatly curtail their production and many of them shut down altogether, the wages of labor would be reduced and great numbers of workmen discharged, the prices of all securities would fall, their earning power would be greatly impaired, and in many cases wholly extinguished. Trade would suffer because of the lessened purchasing power of the people, markets would be stagnant, and idle money would accumulate in the banks. These conditions of depression would continue until the apprehended danger had been averted by the political action of the people."

Now this is exactly what occurred after the election of Cleveland in 1893; but when discussing that fact the Times purposely tries to mislead its readers as to the true, economic movement at that time. What it says on the trusts is clear, strong, true and convincing. What it says on the tariff is quibbling and confusing, and purposely misleading. With such editorial ethics in the "high-class journals," there need be little wonder at a confused public opinion on all important national questions.

This department belongs to our readers, and offers to them full opportunity to "talk back" to the editor, give information, discuss topics or ask questions on subjects within the field covered by GUNTON'S MAGAZINE. All communications, whether letters for publication or inquiries for the "Question Box," must be accompanied by the full name and address of the writer. This is not required for publication, if the writer objects, but as evidence of good faith. Anonymous correspondents are ignored.

LETTERS FROM CORRESPONDENTS

Two Views of Ruskin Colony

Editor GUNTON'S MAGAZINE,

Dear Sir:-Dr. McDill's inside view of the failure of the Ruskin colony, which was printed in the May GUNTON'S, interested me immensely. The editorial reply to Dr. McDill, printed in the same number, was so masterful and so complete that I have felt that further comment from me was not called for. I have long hesitated, too, about precipitating what might develop into a personal controversy in the pages of this admirable magazine, but from this distance perhaps a few words in my own defence may be pardoned.

To Dr. McDill's suggestion that "a little knowledge at first hand" would have prevented “much error" in my article in the December GUNTON's, I might reply that on the historical facts, so far as I can see, both articles were in essential agreement. Dr. McDill, however, resented my statement that "the people dressed indifferently to the point of slatternliness." My authority was Rev. Charles M. Skinner, whom I quoted at least once in my article, and he got his information "at first hand." He said:

"And you feel a pang when you see these people in their great, bleak dining-room, dressed like hod carriers and kitchen wenches and feeding uncomplainingly on bread, potatoes and bacon, because you see they deserve better."

Dr. McDill also took exception to my remark that the "children ran almost as wild as the razor-backs." To quote Mr. Skinner again: