New York City, was replaced years ago, it was thought a remarkable feat to tear down the old structure and build the new one without compelling any of the tenants to remove or suspend business. Something like that is being attempted with the business structure of the United States by President Wilson. The process, needless to say, is not one of unalloyed delight for the tenants. There are noise and dust and confusion, and there is considerable swearing in consequence. But for better or worse the reconstruction has gone forward. The tariff has been changed, the banking system has been remodeled, and last month the new trust bills were sent booming through the lower house of Congress by large majorities made up of all parties. The architect is again being vigorously "cussed," but he is having his own way. The Clayton bill, forbidding interlocking directorates, holding companies, and various other things, was passed by a vote of 275 to 54. The Rayburn bill, regulating the issue by railways of stocks and bonds, was passed by a vote of 325 to 12. The Covington trade commission bill, constituting a body for the regulation of large industrial corporations, was passed without a roll-call, and the viva-voce vote in the negative was very faint and feeble. Party lines were shattered. The vote for the Clayton bill was swelled by the ayes of 43 Republicans and 16 Progressives. The twelve votes against the Rayburn bill were cast by eight Republicans and four Democrats. The most contentious part of the Clayton bill-the amendment exempting labor and farm organizationswas passed without a negative vote, tho more than half of the members had business elsewhere at just that time. This loving exhibition of harmony, instead of inspiring thoughts of peace and good-will, has had an opposite effect. Cries of contempt and snorts of rage are heard in many directions, and the Senate is exhorted to strangle at least two of the three bills.

Shying Bricks at the New Trust Bills.

AND yet, according to that middle-of-the-road journal, the Springfield Republican, the measures are "not extreme or even very radical." And the fairly conservative Indianapolis News says "it would be a mistake to think of them as carelessly drawn by ignorant men. They have been long under consideration, and it is known that expert advice has been taken." Aside from one provision in the Clayton bill, that referring to labor organizations, the measures receive general rather than specific criticism. Thus the N. Y. Evening Sun speaks of the "crudeness and shoddy insincerities" that abound, as it thinks, in the bills. The Milwaukee Sentinel speaks of the bills as a "batch of half-baked, undiscussed and ambiguous business bills." And the Philadelphia Ledger speaks sneeringly of plans for regulation of business "evolved in academic laboratories." But with all this sort of broadcast criticism, and there is much of it, there is little that is specific except such as pertains, as we have said, to the labor exemption clauses. The object of these clauses is to avert the application of the anti-trust laws to labor unions and farmers' unions. For twenty years the Federation of Labor has been fighting for this exemption, on the ground that the Sherman law was never meant to apply to such organizations and has been "perverted by the courts." In 1900 the House passed ar exemption clause similar to that passed last month. The vote then was 274 to 1, and the Senate was expected to kill it, as it did. The unanimous vote in favor of the clause this time, as well as the large majorities in favor of the three complete bills, is attributed by the N. Y. Evening Post and other journals to the expectation that the Senate will amend them with a free hand. Every member of the House has to go before the people this fall for reelection. Only a fraction of the Senators are in that situation. "All indications," says the

"No such restraining order shall prohibit any person or persons from terminating any employment or from ceasing to perform any work or labor, or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful means so to do or for the purpose of peacefully obtaining information or for peacefully persuading any person to work or to restrain from working; or from ceasing to patronize or to employ any party to such dispute or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful means so to do; or from paying or giving to or withholding from any person engaged in such dispute any benefits or moneys or things of value; or from peaceably assembling at any place in a lawful manner and for lawful purposes, or from doing any act or thing which lawfully might be done by any party thereto.

"None of the acts specified in the foregoing shall be construed to be illegal."

Is the Boycott To Be Legalized?

N the legal significance of the foregoing, there is wide divergence of opinion.. It has as many interpreters, the N. Y. Tribune thinks, as there are interpreters for it. "Everybody," it asserts, "who had a hand in concocting it is tainted with its dishonesty and hypocrisy." The Wall Street Journal, however, thinks

the meaning is distressingly clear. "Be it known," it says, "that this legislation legalizes picketing, boycotting, and every infringement upon the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizen at the behest of the labor bosses. That the Supreme Court of the United States would promptly throw such a law into the waste-paper basket is neither here nor there. The same session of the House of Representatives made guilt personal upon the employer, with heavy penalties, and handed the labor leader a license to commit crime." The N. Y. World regards this exemption of labor as simply one. more effort to secure special privilege by law, and to set apart a favored class forever. "It is not easy," it says, "to say which is the more contemptible, the cowardice of the House in voting this privilege with surprising unanimity or the low cunning which enabled it to hide behind an excuse so flimsy," referring to the phrase "by peaceful means. Whether peaceable or not, the World goes on to add, "picketing and boycotting are the very essence of intimidation, conspiracy, restraint of trade and monopoly. . . . The workingman's welfare depends upon justice. With the naked principle of discrimination in the laws once accepted, the inevitable extension of it will find in him not the beneficiary but the victim."

THE

The Attempt to Frighten the
President Away From Trust
Legislation.

HE most violent criticism of this kind comes from the New York press, and it leads the Springfield Republican to speak of a "dead set against the President by influential business and financial interests, in the hope of forcing him to abandon his program of trust legislation at this session." While not defending that program as sound in all points, it regards it as "fairly moderate," and it reminds us that the trust issue was one of the most conspicuous in the presidential campaign of 1912, and the administration is bound to redeem its pledges. If it does not do so now it will

have to take the trust question up on the eve of the next presidential campaign-a delay that would not be politically wise. The Chicago Tribune sees some difficulty in drawing a distinction, in theory, between a combination of a few men to fix the price of their commodity and a combination of many men to fix the price of their labor. "Nevertheless," it says, "it must be remembered that attack under the federal law would not destroy unionism. It would merely drive it underground and would play directly into the hands of the I. W. W. element. To attempt to abolish the abuses by abolishing unions would be as futile as reactionary. Much of the best in the union movement would be lost, while the worst-the violence and graftwould remain and probably increase." The St. Louis Post-Dispatch thinks that these trust measures supply a sound foundation for prosperity. "They will rehabilitate American railroads and American interstate corporations in public confidence. They will protect the public from discriminations, sharp practices and spoliation by unrestrained corporate directors whose only motive is greed." The Newark Evening News thinks the strangest thing about these trust measures is the comparatively little turmoil their passage has created. Five years ago, it remarks, they would have caused an earthquake.

The "Psychological" Depression of Business.

NOTHING that any of the papers say on the trust

legislation, nor, indeed, all that they say taken together, has as much significance, perhaps, as the address made by Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, before the New York State Bankers' Association, June II, and the action taken as a result. Mr. Vanderlip did not speak directly on the trust legislation, but apparently the spirit of that legislation was the moving cause of his remarks. His

3

appeal was to the bankers and business men to get in closer touch with the economic and political tendencies of the day and to direct their energies more to guiding and informing it and less to obstructing it. We can no longer forecast the course of business, he said, by means of business and financial statistics. It is almost startling to note how important has become the "adventitious factor of legislation." Not the prospect of new crops but the prospect of new laws is now the factor to be most taken into consideration. Referring to a recent statement by President Wilson to the effect that business depression to-day is mainly psychological, Mr. Vanderlip said that in a sense that seems to him to be true. The depression has its roots in a state of mind rather than in the actual data of business. With such facts and figures as we can show to-day, we would have been justified ten years ago in predicting a period of great and immediate expansion. The obstacles in the way are intangible, but not on that account unreal. They lie in the demand for legislative restriction and control of business.

"The development of industrialism within our lifetime has been of such a revolutionary character as naturally and rightly to create a demand for a body of controlling laws such as were never dreamed of by our fathers. I deny that those laws have been made necessary by unfairness or by wicked practices on the part of the men who have conducted large affairs, altho instances of unfairness and wicked practices may be pointed out. They have their sound basis in the revolutionary changes in industrial life, and if we could only generalize upon the principles involved, instead of anathematizing individuals who have been

caragua's foreign relations and the right to intervene in domestic matters to restore order. By the payment of three millions of dollars we are to receive a perpetual right of way for a canal from ocean to ocean;—not that we are yearning to dig any more canals just now, but that we do not want anybody else to have a chance to do so. By the terms of the treaty, moreover, Nicaragua is not to engage in any war without our consent, is not to incur any financial obligations that will imperil her independence, and is to grant us a naval base in Fonseca Bay and leases on Great and Little Corn Islands. This treaty, mind you, has been negotiated by a secretary of state who a few years ago made anti-imperialism the dominant issue in his campaign for the presidency. Whether he has changed his point of view or whether Manifest Destiny has proven too strong for him or whether, as is more likely, he considers that there is a wide distinction between a protectorate that is solicited from us and a proprietorship that is enforced by us may be a matter of dispute. In any event, it is interesting to note the remark made by a writer, F. Garcia Calderon, in a recent number of the Atlantic, as follows:

"Far from growing antiquated and disappearing, Monroeism is winning new adherents hitherto antagonistic to its influences. In the United States the Democrats are becoming its zealous defenders. They are abandoning their irreproachable attitude of sympathetic neutrality toward the efforts of new peoples. Their enthusiasm now surpasses the ardor of the Republicans, who are naturally inclined to expansion and to war. Henceforth imperialism is destined to form part and parcel of the great national tradition. Its influence depends but little upon rivalry of parties and changes of administration."

This treaty with Nicaragua has already stirred Central American states deeply, as it affects seriously their longcherished vision of a union of Central American nations. Secretary Bryan's reply to their protests is as I significant as the treaty itself. As reported, it is to the effect that all the other states of Central America may enter into the same relations with us!

THE

A Bonus of $25,000,000 and an Apology.

'HE treaty with Colombia has been held up by the Department of State for several months, presumably for the purpose of getting the canal tolls bill out of the way first. The treaty with Nicaragua is more likely to meet opposition in the Democratic ranks than in the Republican. But the treaty with Colombia is almost certain to bring on a fierce partisan contest in the Senate, and to bring together Republicans and Progressives in opposition. The treaty consists of five articles. The first article consists of a one-sided expression of regret-what is by many called our "apology." It runs as follows:

"The Government of the United States of America, wishing to put at rest all controversies and differences with the Republic of Colombia arising out of the events from which the present situation on the Isthmus of Panama resulted, expresses, in its own name and in the name of the people of the United States, sincere regret that anything should have occurred to interrupt or to mar the relations of cordial friendship that had so long subsisted between the two nations."

Colombia "accepts" but does not join in this expression

5

of regret. The second article grants to Colombia passage through the canal for her ships of war, her products, and her citizens, in time either of peace or war, without paying any charges other than those paid by American ships, products and citizens. The third article is short and to Colombia no doubt-sweet. It contains thirty-six words, the cost of which will be about $700,000 a word. It runs as follows:

"The United States of America agrees to pay to the Republic of Colombia, within six months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present Treaty, the sum of twenty-five million dollars, gold, United States money."

R

The Modest Claims of Colombia on Uncle Sam's Treasury.

EAL estate down there in Panama comes high when Uncle Sam goes marketing. The Panama Zone, which we have secured for 999 years, is a strip of land ten miles wide and about sixty miles long, which ran through, pestilential swamps and impenetrable jungles. We paid the French company forty millions of dollars for the concession it held from Colombia and the work of excavation it had accomplished. Then we paid Panama ten millions more. We have paid approximately $375,000,000 for the construction of the canal, and we are now paying millions for fortifying it. Now comes this call for $25,000,000 more to be paid to Colombia, to compensate her for the loss of Panama. But cheer up, it might be worse. Colombia claims twice that sum. She claims 64 annuities of $250,000 each for the Panama railway, which she lost with Panama. In addition to these yearly payments she claims an almost equal sum ($16,446,000) as the value of the road itself.