The House committee reported unanimously that "Congress has no authority over the subject of woman and child labor and has no authority to suppress any abuses of such labor or ameliorate conditions surrounding the employment of such laborers." The committee said among other things:

The jurisdiction and authority over the subject of woman and child labor certainly falls under the police power of the states, and not under the commercial power of Congress. The suggestion contained in the resolution shows how rapidly we are drifting in thought from our constitutional moorings. Undoubtedly it is the earnest wish of all who desire the prosperity of the nation that the proper line should always be drawn between the power of the states and the power of the nation. Certainly there is no warrant in the Constitution for the thought or suggestion that Congress can exercise jurisdiction and authority over the subject of woman and child labor. If those performing such labor are abused and conditions are such that the same should be improved, it rests for the states to act. The failure of the states to act will not justify unconstitutional action by Congress.

Unquestionably Congress has the power to investigate conditions, ascertain facts and report upon any subject. In the opinion of your committee, there is no question as to the entire want of power on the part of Congress to exercise jurisdiction and authority over the subject of woman and child labor.

In fact, it is not a debatable question. It would be a reflection upon the intelligence of Congress to so legislate. It would be casting an unwelcome burden upon the Supreme Court to so legislate. The agitation of such legislation produces an uneasy feeling among the people and confuses the average mind as to the power of Congress and the power of the state. The lives, health and property of the women and children engaged in labor is exclusively within the power of the states, originally and always belonging to the states, not surrendered by them to Congress. Such is the emphatic language of the Supreme Court. If a question of good order and morals, it is the same. The argument has long since been made by others, and the committee cannot add to it.

This report has not at all convinced the friends of the child-labor bills that their views are unsound. Some, in fact, including Senator Beveridge, have ridiculed it and attacked

alike its law and its logic. It is said to be in flat opposition to a series of decisions of the Supreme Court in cases involving the construction of the commerce clause of the Constitution.

The New Immigration Bill

Contrary to general expectation, Congress passed toward the last of the last session a bill for the further restriction of immigration. It is not radical in any of its features, and will not operate to exclude any able-bodied, industrious or fit persons. A clause prescribing a simple educational test for immigrants had been adopted by the Senate, rejected by the House and subsequently eliminated by the conference committee.

The act amends the immigration law of 1903 and cures some of its recognized imperfections. It adds feeble-minded persons and imbeciles to the excluded classes. It raises the immigrant head-tax from $2 to $4. It strengthens greatly the provisions against "assisted immigration" and the importation of contract laborers. It insures better examination of emigrants. It prescribes more space and air for steerage passengers. It provides for a commission to make a thorough investigation of the immigration problem and recommend further legislation, if necessary, or changes in the administration of existing law and also from an international conference on immigration.

The South is not pleased with the new act. It needs factory and domestic labor and has made some efforts to attract desirable immigration from the north of Europe. It has indirectly "assisted" immigrants, municipalities and private employers contributing toward the maintenance of state commissions in Europe and the payment of passage money. The new act may interfere with such efforts. In the East, however, where there is an oversupply of immigrants and congestion of aliens in cities the act is generally approved.

Solution of the Japanese-American Problem

For the present, at any rate, the "Japanese" problem which San Francisco precipitated some time ago may be regarded as solved. There are further developments in store, but they are not likely to affect the spirit of the temporary "solution."

Concessions have had to be made by all parties. San Francisco and California, represented by local men of official influence, agreed to change the school-board's rule for the segregation of Japanese pupils of any age. The federal administration agreed to protect California against the “invasion" of Japanese coolies and laborers, while the government of Japan, it is understood, accepted in principle the San Francisco-Washington compromise and acquiesced in the so-called Root amendment.

This amendment constitutes part of the immigration act which passed Congress and has been signed by the President. It is remarkable from several points of view. It reads as follows:

That whenever the President shall be satisfied that passports issued by any foreign government to its citizens to go to any country other than the United States, or to any insular possessions of the United States or to the canal zone are being used for the purpose of enabling the holders to come to the continental territory of the United States, to the detriment of labor conditions herein, the President may refuse to permit such citizens of the country issuing such passports to enter the continental territory of the United States from such other countries, or from such insular possessions, or from the canal zone.

This provision rests on the fundamental fact that the Japanese government itself has of late sought to discourage emigration to the "Continental" parts of the United States. It has done this for reasons of its own, as well as in order to avoid unnecessary complications and difficulties in the Pacific coast states, where there has been much violent agitation against Koreans and Japanese. But the Japanese government has freely issued passports to subjects intending to emigrate to Hawaii, to the West Indies or to Central or

South America. Now, it is from Hawaii that most of the Japanese "invading" California have generally come, and there has heretofore been no legal way to prevent their coming, since Hawaii is part of the Union.

Proceeding on the theory that Japan will continue to refuse passports to those who wish to proceed to continental America and perhaps having received assurances on the point-Secretary Root drew up the above amendment. It is apparently consonant with the policy of the Japanese government itself and therefore cannot offend the pride or wound the self-respect of the Japanese people, although certain elements of the population are said to be angry and resentful.

There is, however, likely to be graver dissatisfaction in Japan when the question of an exclusion treaty pure and simple, such as California demands, is taken up with the government of Tokio. The intention of our government is to make the exclusion mutual-that is to enable Japan to exclude American laborers and our Congress to exclude Japanese laborers, skilled and unskilled. As no American laborers emigrate to Japan, the exclusion of Americans would obviously be purely nominal and Pickwickian. Yet Japan is supposed to be willing to negotiate such a treaty so long as the Japanese who are already here receive fair treatment and are not in any way discriminated against.

&

A Great Education Endowment

The year 1907 promises to eclipse any previous year in the matter of voluntary endowment of education, charity and benevolence, especially the first-named field of intellectual and spiritual activity. The total of last year's gifts for such purposes was $106,000,000; it included a number of comparatively large donations. The total for the current year will undoubtedly exceed it.

Mr. John D. Rockefeller has established a new mark or "record" in philanthropy. His gift of $32,000,000 to the

General Education Board, a national institution organized in 1900 to study educational needs, receive and distribute gifts, and promote the progress of the higher education of men and women in the country, was praised by that body in fitting terms. It is the greatest gift, as it said, made to education by a single individual in the history of civilization.

One-third of the amount donated goes into the board's permanent endowment fund, and the income from it will be applied at the discretion of the board. The employment of the other two-thirds may be directed by Mr. Rockefeller or his son during their respective lifetimes; if they fail to designate beneficiaries, the board will eventually obtain control of the balance.

The members of the board are distinguished men representing education, the other liberal professions and the world of industry and commerce. No aid is voted by the board without a thorough study of the claims, facilities and prospects of the beneficiary institution. It is said that the board knows more about the work and status of the colleges of the country than their own chiefs or faculties.

There was an impression abroad that Mr. Rockefeller wished to favor particularly the small colleges of the country, which are supposed to have suffered in recent years in consequence of the drift of population into the large centers and the tendencies toward consolidation and bigness. But, according to a statement by one of the trustees of the fund, Mr. Rockefeller's personal representative, it is intended to pursue the opposite policy-to devote a good share of the income to the building up of the great universities in the cities. Paris, Berlin, St. Petersburg and other capitals, it is observed, have great universities, ancient seats of learning and culture, while the United States has not sought so far to develop a similar national university.

While it is not the intention of the board to work in this direction, it will seek to establish or enlarge colleges in cities of 100,000 or more inhabitants. Another fundamental policy will be the improvement of the women's colleges and