Page images


(Birmingham Age-Herald.)

WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON became President at the age of 68, and Theodore Roosevelt at the age of 42. These are the extreme instances of age in our presidential annals. Out of 27 Presidents only five had passed, at the time of inauguration, the age of 60. The favorite presidential age has been between 50 and 60 years.

Some of the aspirants of today are older. Gov. Judson Harmon is the dean of the corps, for he will be 67 next March, and he would crowd William Henry Harrison close for first place in the respect of age if he should be elected President. Speaker Clark is 63, and so is Senator Cummins. Mr. Taft is 56, Mr. Underwood 51, Mr. Roosevelt 54, and Governor Wilson 57.

Beyond a doubt as the republic becomes greater in every respect and the duties of the presidential office heavier the tendency is to select a man for President who is in full strength and vigor-a man about 50 years old, and a man who has lived the allotted age of man is now out of the running.


(Indianapolis Star.)

"DEATH THE LEVELER" manifested in an unusual and striking way his power to reduce high and low to an equality when he took to himself Frederick, King of the Danes. With all signs and symbols of his earthly rank absent, this honored ruler fell dead on an obscure street of a foreign city and, like any unfortunate, was carried to a hospital, stripped and laid upon a marble slab of the morgue, there to await identification. Beside him were other slabs bearing other bodies-tramps, waifs, life's derelicts, perhaps, but no marks of difference distinguished King from commoner. All were alike under death's awful seal until the monarch's horrified retainers bore their master's body away in haste and surrounded it with royal trappings of woe.

Life was much of a leveler also to the King, thus suddenly taken. He had been reared with great simplicity, and seems naturally to have been of democratic tastes. He had served as a private soldier, allowing himself no privileges because of his birth, but sharing in all the hardships of his army associates, eating the rude fare and joining in the long marches and the work of the camp. As a student, too, he had not lived in his father's palace, but in student lodgings, and claimed no privileges above his fellows. Throughout his life he was a man of the people, and when he came to the throne, six years ago, was so much loved that had his accession been left to popular vote, he would, no doubt, have been elected, as his son Haakon was in Norway.

Denmark has long been a democratic country, in fact if not in form, its rulers having been in close touch with the people, and for the most, governing wisely and well. King Frederick, in his short period of service, had established himself as a liberal and intelligent administrator of affairs, and though his son Christian will doubtless prove a satisfactory successor, the mourning for the dead sovereign will be sincere. He had played his part in the world as best he knew, and that is much. to say for king or peasant.


(Troy Times.)

PROF. WILLIAM JAMES ASHLEY, one of the most noted of British economists, has been studying the cost-of-living problem and has reached some conclusions which will be of interest, whether or not they receive general acquiescence. Professor Ashley finds that the increased expense of existence is one of the chief causes of recent strikes, not only in Great Britain but elsewhere, and holds that, in view of the exceeding gravity of the industrial outlook all round the globe, care should be taken to examine causes closely and impartially. A work published by him in which his deductions are set forth is attracting much attention.

Within fifteen years, according to Professor Ashley, wholesale prices in England have advanced twenty-four per cent., and retail prices to a slightly smaller extent. Nearly everything required for the household is dearer, and the professor adds that the same thing is true in varying degree throughout the world. Common-sense teaches that no one cause can be responsible for this condition of things, and most absurd of all is the effort to attribute to the American tariff full responsibility for the increase in the United States. Professor Ashley dismisses that notion somewhat brusquely when he says: "I am one of those who regard neither protection nor a trust as in itself necessarily bad. On the one hand, I am not in the least concerned to defend every measure in the German protective policy or every measure adopted by American trusts. Protection or trusts may do much or little in Germany and America, but it is highly improbable that they can entirely account for the rise of prices, even there, since a rise certainly half as great has taken place in England." This is a blow straight between the eyes at those who hold the American tariff and American trusts solely accountable for increased prices here.

What are the causes, in the opinion of Professor Ashley? He says they are to be found in two phenomena-shortage of production in certain commodities, as cotton and rubber, and a greatly increased production of gold. In other words, the working of the age-old law of supply and demand. Professor Ashley

cites figures to prove his case, and is frank enough to admit that there are offsets to the excessive gold-supply theory. While there have been enormous additions to the world's stock of yellow metal there also have been tremendous expansion in the world's trade, readjustment of currency standards and other changes which have enhanced the demand for gold and to that extent counterbalanced the increased output. And it is evident from this reasoning that the greatest instrumentality in advancing prices has been the relative decrease in production of commodities, accompanied by a higher standard of living. The remedy is to be found in increasing production, and more and more the world's scientific thoughts is turning in that direction.


(New York Evening Post.)

IN their efforts to drop from its membership the able and attractive Assistant Attorney-General of the United States, Mr. William H. Lewis, the officials of the American Bar Association are more and more shaming themselves and the body for which they speak. Mr. Lewis, it will be remembered, is a man of color, a graduate of Amherst and Harvard, for years in the Federal District Attorney's office in Boston, and now a trusted assistant of Mr. Wickersham. He was invited to join the Bar Association by a committee of its Boston members, urged to recruit its ranks. Had he not become conspicuous by reason of his appointment to office in Washington, he would today be peacefully a member of the Association. When opposition to his confirmation developed, somebody noticed that he was a member, and then the trouble began. The President of the Bar Association, Mr. Stephen S. Gregory, from whose standing and antecedents something very different and far better might have been expected, suddenly discovered that the Association was a social body, with whose pleasures at its annual convention Mr. Lewis might interfere, if he should by any chance happen to attend. He then set up the remarkable plea that Mr. Lewis was elected under false pretences, that is, "misapprehension," because there was not written all over his nomination papers the word "colored."

Of course the Boston committee knew who Mr. Lewis was when they certified him to the executive committee for election as a desirable member. For six months he exercised his membership; then he was asked to "voluntarily retire" and give up something "obtained under a misapprehension." Indeed, it speedily appeared that he had actually committed a crime, for he was "insisting on retaining the advantages of an election thus obtained"-obtained by invitation of the Boston membership committee and duly ratified by the executive committee. This, of course, added to the heinousness of the original offence of having a dark skin. The executive com

« PreviousContinue »