Page images

history that any naval writer has made,-the patriotism and genius of Jones shine forth with a pure luster that nothing henceforth can dim. John Paul Jones was one of the greatest men of a great period. He was a diplomatist and a statesman, as well as a seaman and a fighter, and he was a greater master of the English language for the purposes of lucid and convincing expres

The Approach

The Navy Department, in consenting


ing Court of to grant the requested court of inInquiry. quiry, drew up an elaborate specification of the matters to be investigated. court of inquiry is composed of Admirals Dewey, Howison, and Benham, with Captain Lemly as Judge-Advocate. A great number of witnesses will be examined, including all the officers of the Brooklyn, which was Admiral Schley's flagship in the Santiago action; and distinguished counsel will appear for Admiral Schley, notably Judge Jere Wilson, of Washington. The inquiry opens on September 12. If this distinguished court should find warrant for the severe aspersions which have been cast upon the conduct of Admiral Schley, it would seem as if there must follow a trial by court-martial, in order to visit due punishment upon the head of the veteran offender. If, on the other hand, the court should find that these charges are groundless, it would seem as if there must be prompt action taken in other quarters to punish certain of Schley's traducers.


REAR-ADMIRAL HENRY L. HOWISON, U.S.N. (Member of the court of inquiry.)


sion than any other man who has ever served in the American navy. He cared also for his own reputation, and thought somewhat of posterity; for, like Washington, he had the greatness to foresee the development of the United States. But his reputation was not due to any effort on his part to diminish that of anybody else. was investigated on one occasion where he was obliged to answer a series of questions contrived by his enemies to entrap him. He employed no counsel, but vindicated himself brilliantly. The circumstances of the Spanish-American War brought great personal reputation to Admiral Dewey. It so happened that they did not bring a correspondingly great reputation to anybody else. Nobody has been able to see the work of one directing mind in the destruction of Cervera's fleet outside the harbor of Santiago. The result was due to the general efficiency of the American navy, of which the country regarded both Sampson and Schley as particularly creditable and use. ful members. It is pitiable that there should have arisen all this discord and detraction

[blocks in formation]

cause of the rare fund of knowledge possessed by Dr. Williams on the entire history of English and American industrial conditions, and because of this writer's eminent fairness and impartiality of judgment. His philosophical analysis of the present situation is a masterly one. It is evident that he perceives the many advantages of what he calls collective bargaining;" that is to say, of the regulation of such questions as wages and hours of labor through the fixing of widely recognized standards by means of periodical agreements between organized labor on one side and associated or consolidated capital on the other side. But Dr. Williams also sees some of the disadvantages that grow out of a complete recourse to this kind of "collective bargaining." In England, where trade-unionism has gone much further than in the United States, there has come about a fixity of condition which makes it comparatively difficult for the exceptionally skilled and talented workman to rise above the average of his fellows. And these fixed conditions, furthermore, make it relatively difficult for English manufacturers to adopt new machinery, and to make those bold, novel, and brilliant strides in industrial progress that have characterized the United States in recent years. A confirmation of the accuracy of Dr. Williams' comparison of English and American conditions is at hand in the form of certain comments on the relative industrial position of Great Britain that we have received from the pen of Mr. G. N. Barnes, secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, this being the English organization of machinists. Mr. Barnes believes in complete organization on both sides, with a provision of means for rectifying abuses and adjusting differences, and with due provision for arbitration. His views are fairly representative of the conscious and accepted ideals of British trade-unionism; and they are well expressed in the following quotations from his letter:

The greater degree of minute subdivision of labor in America is, I believe, producing a type of workman far inferior to the mechanic of this country in initiative and reliability, while the unrestrained piecework iethods which are practised there set man against man and produce a lobsided and narrow individualism which may, in the long run, prove inimical to the best interests of the community.

A man may produce a good deal if his faculties are. focussed in a narrow groove, and he may become himself but a producing machine when divested of all fellow-feeling with those about him, and engaged in a miserable scramble in which the fittest are the physically strong and morally unscrupulous. Before embarking on this course of production, I want to know where it is leading. Will it lead to the " producing of as many as possible full-breathed, bright-eyed, and happyhearted human creatures," which, Ruskin said, and I

believe, to be the only wealth worth striving for, and which is of infinitely greater importance than manufacturing supremacy? Well, I can only say, as a canny Scot, "I hae ma doots."

English versus American Conditions.


In England, sled labor recognizes itself as a ass with a fixed status; and its purpose is to get as much comfort and satisfaction out of life as possible for its class, jointly and severally. Such ideals have not fully crystallized in the more mobile and dynamic society of the United States. The. exigencies of life in this country seem more immediate and strenuous; and to every intelligent young man there seems no limit to the possibilities of getting on in the world." Many of the greatest of our captains of industry and financial magnates have risen from the ranks of labor; and there is no reason why it should not continue to be so. Improvements in our system of edu cation will add new dignity and meaning to every form of handicraft and to skill in every industrial process. In America, the ideal is not the crystallization of classes who are to organize in order to secure the best possible terms for their respective castes or guilds. It is that of the equality of citizenship, the freedom of contract, and the like dignity and independence of every man who earns an honest living, sends his neatly dressed children to the public schools, and maintains a decent home. Under our American conditions, trade-unionism, though a powerful expedient, is not so much the end in itself and the gospel to live by as it is among workmen in England. this country, a workman may be a union man one year and a non-union man the next, without inconsistency or discredit, according to circumstances. In either case, his unionism or his nonunionism will be subordinate to his personal independence, and to his own plans and intentions in respect to his mode of livelihood and his prospects of success in the race for competence and an independent position.




When all this is said, however, it reAppropriate mains true that trade-unionism has served a great and useful end in this country, and that it has before it unquestionably a still greater and more useful future. In our judgment, a great employer like the United States Steel Corporation should not allow the impression to be current that it is in any degree hostile to the principle of the association of its employees in trade-unions, or that it will in the future have any objections whatever to making what Dr. Williams calls "collective bargains" with its employees, provided they make it clear that they are responsibly organized and suitably represented, and that they will hold stanchly to their



Front row-Walter Larkins, M. T. Tighe, John Williams, T. J. Shaffer, Ben. J. Davis, and John Chappell; Back row-David Rees, Clem Jarvis, C. H. Davis, John A. Morgan, F. J. Williams, Elias Jekins, John T. Ward, W. C. Davis, John Pierce, and John Hodge.

agreements when once they have made them. The view that prevails in many quarters that it would be dangerous for the Steel Trust to allow its men to become unionized throughout, because it might thus put itself completely in their power, seems to us to be wholly fallacious. The economic laws that govern wages and conditions of labor cannot be made or unmade by trade-unions on the one hand, nor by trusts on the other. They can, of course, be gradually modified,-because organization itself must be counted as one among the almost innumerable conditions affecting supply and demand. The fundamental check, after all, upon the sort of trade-union methods that has been regarded as objectionable in England lies in the more intense energy and ambition of the American employers and of a certain proportion of their employees. Unionism, as such, is not going to be suppressed in the United States, no matter what may have proved to be the outcome of the strike of the iron and steel workers. Mr. Shaffer's mistakes do not necessarily condemn trade-unions, although they must naturally hurt. the Amalgamated Association not a little.

[blocks in formation]


cial guarantees that they will live up to their bargains; and it will never be feasible to attempt to compel them to do so by law. It is all the more incumbent upon them, therefore, that when once they have signed a wage-scale for a year or any other given period, they do not break their solemn agreement by striking. good many unions have won for themselves the entire confidence of their employers by showing that they appreciate the binding force of their contracts. Mr. Shaffer himself in times past has urgently preached this gospel of fidelity to agreements, just as he has with equal force preached the gospel that strikers must be law-abiding citizens, indulge in no rioting, respect the rights of property, and keep in mind the legal right of non-union men to accept the employment that strikers have renounced.

[blocks in formation]

justified in conquering France; but it does not follow that it was good policy for Germany to annex Alsace and Lorraine. The Steel Corporation undoubtedly had the best possible right to oppose the strike and to defeat it by the most vigorous and active measures. It is not so certain, however, that it will be to the permanent advantage of the Steel Corporation to refuse to allow organized labor in the future to take its place in certain mills where organization has been recognized heretofore. This, of course, is not a question of rights, but simply one of policy. It was felt last month, also, by a good many people who were not in sympathy with Mr. Shaffer's strike, that the Steel Corporation was exhibiting too formidable a power of life and death over communities in the steps that were proposed, if not actually taken, to move important mills bodily from one region to another, these changes affecting the homes and employment of scores of thousands of people in the aggregate.

[blocks in formation]

great interest was aroused in the attempt of the Amalgamated Association to stop the steel mills of the Chicago and Milwaukee region. The members of the Amalgamated Association in the mills of South Chicago refused unanimously to obey President Shaffer's strike order, on the ground that they were working under agreements with their employers, who had for many years treated them fairly in every way. The men in the great mills at Joliet, near Chicago, though evidently reluctant, were persuaded to strike on August 16. The question then arose whether or not the Milwaukee men could be induced to leave the mills. This was discussed on Saturday, August 17, with the result that the strike senti. ment prevailed. Early in the month, Mr. Shaffer and others had come to New York and conferred with Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, with the conse. quence that honorable terms of settlement were offered which Mr. Shaffer on his own part agreed to accept. But this arrangement was rejected by the executive committee of the Amalgamated Association; and so the strike went on. From the very beginning, this remarkable contest has been waged without securing at any moment the


real approval of a considerable part of the men who are actually leading it. Offers later in August on the part of the Amalgamated Association to submit everything involved to arbitration were not considered by the other side, who claimed that there was nothing to arbitrate.


Disorder in Panama.

In the middle of August it was known that def

inite orders had been issued to three American warships, on request of the State Department, to proceed at once to the Isthmus of Panama. These vessels were the gunboat Machias, which was waiting at Norfolk, Va., for an abatement of the great storms that had been raging for several days along our South Atlantic coast; the other two were the gunboat Ranger, which was at San Diego, Cal., and the battleship Iowa, which had just arrived at San Francisco


after having undergone repairs in Puget Sound. The occasion of this dispatch of warships to both terminals of the Panama Railroad the existence of a serious state of revolution. ary activity through all that region, which had threatened the peaceful operation of the railroad, and which, incidentally, had endangered the property of Americans and other foreigners. The State Department under the present admin. istration is exceedingly scrupulous in avoiding all actions that might appear to be unwarranted interference on the part of the United States in the affairs of other countries. Doubtless, the actual interests of American citizens in the Isthmus of Panama, and our historical attitude toward the maintenance of peace and good order in the western hemisphere, would have justified our dispatching naval vessels to the scene of disturbance. But the State Department had something much more specific to justify its action, and this was the treaty obligation assumed by us fiftythree years ago in connection with the construction of an American railway across the isthmus. This guarantee to give effective protection so that transit across the isthmus should not be "interrupted and embarrassed in any future time while the treaty exists" was contained in the following article of our convention of June 12, 1848, with New Grenada, which at that time was the name of the republic of which the state of Panama was a part:

In order to secure to themselves the tranquil and constant enjoyment of these advantages, and as an especial compensation for the said advantages, and for the favors they have acquired by the third, fourth, and sixth articles of this treaty, the United States guarantee positively and efficaciously to New Grenada, by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality of the beforementioned isthmus, with a view that the free transit from the one to the other sea may not be interrupted and embarrassed in any future time while this treaty exists; and in consequence, the United States also guarantee, in the same manner, the rights of sovereignty and property which New Grenada has and possesses over said territory.

In 1885, a formidable revolution in Colombia spread to the state of Panama, and our Government then acted promptly, sent ships to both sides of the isthmus, landed marines, and took action which, while fulfilling our agreement to preserve the freedom of traffic in Panama, also largely helped to suppress the insurrection. This was early in the year. Late in the same year, when conditions again seemed disturbed, our Government again promptly reinforced its squadron in the waters adjacent to Colombia. Subsequent to the dispatch of ships last month, it was reported that the railroad was in free operation and that the trouble in Panama seemed at an end.

Our Relations


It is, of course, highly important for to the the sake of our own political interests in the large sense that we should on no occasion fail to render promptly the police duty in the Isthmus of Panama that properly devolves upon us. That isthmus is of no practical value to the republic of Colombia, and it would be far better-since in any case of serious disturbance it falls to our lot to keep peace and order there-that we should in due time come into full authority. It would be to our advantage to purchase the isthmus from Colombia at a fair price; and the South American republic, on the other hand, would be in every way more secure, contented, and prosperous if we should thus become her neighbor. She has no navy at all, except one little river gunboat and two still smaller vessels; and geographical considerations render her isthmus adjunct almost as remote and isolated as if it were an island a thousand miles distant. The trouble in Panama is connected with a prevalent state of disorder and revolutionary activity that affects both Colombia and Venezuela. The situation is obscure, because there would seem to be several cross-currents of agitation. One of the movements said to be on foot has for its object the federation of Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador. Such a combination, if it could be firmly effected, would have a considerable ambition; but the movement seems fanciful rather than mature and well considered. Events may show that the time is nearly ripe for the United States to acquire Panama as well as to assume new relations toward Nicaragua.


Reform The political contest in Pennsylvania Struggles in Pennsylvania is not so important this year in the and New York. offices to be filled as in the principles at stake. It is the prevailing opinion that the Republican régime in the State of Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia has of late been so corrupt as to have no parallei or precedent in the history of any civilized state or country. Democrats, in their convention at Harrisburg, on August 15, adopted a remarkable platform, wholly ignoring all national issues, and devoting exclusive attention to the necessity of reform in the government of the State. It is expected that the independent Republicans, of whom Mr. John Wanamaker is the most prominent, will unite with the Democrats both this year, when a State treasurer and a judge are to be chosen, and also next year, when a governor and legislature will be elected, in a supreme attempt to overthrow Mr. Quay's powerful Republican machine. Much more important than the State election this year will be the municipal election in Philadelphia. Heretofore, the success of the elements

« PreviousContinue »