A

STRONG protest has been made by several distinguished members of the Advisory Board of the Jamestown Exposition against what they characterize as the "perversion" of that interesting enterprise, or its "diversion to the service of militarism." The exposition will be held to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown, the first English colony in America. Virginia originated the idea, and the whole country, including Congress, responded sympathetically. No one thought that the exposition would be-what the directors now say it will be -"primarily a military and naval" display. The literature of the company contains this statement:

The genius of the great American Republic having always been one of peace, it is peculiarly fitting that the celebration of the event from which the nation has grown should be dignified by this mighty convocation of fighting men and material; for the close intermingling of the forces which make for war, the camaraderie which obtains on such occasions, and the friendships made are potent and. it may be, determining factors in avoiding international complications in the future.

In the published list of attractions and spectacular features nearly one-half bear on military and naval subjects. The protestants-and among them are Cardinal Gibbons, Dr. Edward E. Hale, Dr. Carroll D. Wright, Miss Jane Addams, Edwin L. Mead-declare that this is incompatible with the spirit of Americanism and with the idea of many of those who accept membership on the Advisory Board. The document they published says in part:

That an international naval and military celebration

was to have conspicuous place in the exposition's program, as provided for by Congress in granting aid for that purpose in 1905, was well known, and was conventionally proper; but the purpose to make this great exposition primarily a naval and military spectacle, to intoxicate the American people for six months by a "great living picture of war with all its enticing splendors," encouraging the notion that war is a thing of splendor, a pageant and a game, instead of a horror, and today almost invariably crime, was not known, was not avowed and has clearly been a gradually evolving purpose, whose carrying out, as now advertised, can only work immense mischief to the country. We solemnly protest against it.

We

We wish to say, quite independently of any general feeling about all this extravagant militarism, that the reproduction in Hampton Roads on such an occasion of one of the tragic battles of our Civil War, as a spectacle to attract and amuse a crowd of careless spectators, is a thing greatly to be deprecated. These are not memories which it is wise to freshen in the minds of our people. trust that the recent intimation that this feature of the program will be abandoned is warranted. This, however, is a comparatively trivial thing. The thing of moment is that the whole general character and proportion of the program for this great exposition have undergone a thorough transformation, from a central purpose which was fitting and inspiring to a dominant end which is not fitting and is a menace to the true interest of the Republic.

The protest has elicited a few favorable comments in the daily press, but the majority of the newspapers cannot be said to be in sympathy with the signers. Some distinctly evade the issue, and others attempt to minimize the importance and moral effect of the military features—naval parade, reproductions of famous battles, and so on. It is plain, however, that these are not really opposed to militarism and would offer no objection to what most lovers of peace would consider as an unquestionable perversion of the exposition. The notion that magnificent military displays tend to promote peace and sentiments of good will and amity is decidedly novel and curious. Most psychologists, educators and moralists think it utterly paradoxical and contrary to all experience.

Reform in Politics and Legislation

Secretary Root's impressive warning to the states with reference to the inevitable extension of the power of the federal government, in the event of the states failing to exercise their powers and to perform their duties toward the people, is still under general discussion. In connection with it it is natural to study with attention the gubernatorial messages to the legislatures now in session, the legislation proposed or pending, and the problems recognized as demanding solution by state action.

An examination of these things shows that the spirit of reform is abroad in all the states of the Union. Even the most conservative governors and legislatures have been proposing and debating changes of an "advanced" character in a number of directions. Some have to do with elections and campaigns and party organization; others with taxation, corporate activity and wealth-making, and still others with moral and social questions.

It is hardly necessary to set forth in detail the recommendations of the state executives; a few will serve as illustrations of the prevailing tendency and spirit.

The Governors of New York, Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Minnesota and some other states favor state railroad legislation modeled upon the new federal "railroad rate" act. They would prohibit and guard against in state commerce what the federal law prohibits and guards against in interstate commerce.

Several governors advocate reduction of railroad fares. to the two-cent a mile basis, legislation against lobbying, restriction of child labor, prohibition of passes by transportation companies, etc. Two of these favor progressive taxation of incomes and inheritances-this being the most radical of the current proposals.

Primary law reform is a live issue in several states. The tendency is more and more to do away with conventions-too often controlled by machines-and substitute direct nomination by the people, either at primaries properly

regulated by law, or by petition. Greater simplicity in ballot laws is urged by Governor Hughes and several other executives. The aim is to do away entirely with the "circle" at the top, which gives the unthinking, narrow partisan a great advantage over the independent or the discriminating partisan, and print the names of candidates alphabetically under the designation of the office for which they stand.

Marriage and divorce reform, suppression of gambling, better regulation of banking to prevent fraud and embezzlement, pure food, prison reform, are among the other recommendations of the executives. Scores of bills have already been introduced on these classes of subjects, and doubtless not a few of them will be enacted into law. Governor Hughes has made a deep impression on the whole country by the character of his utterances, and much excellent work is expected of him. He has announced that in the event of any difficulty with the legislature he will "appeal to the people" directly, stating his position and that of the legislature and asking the public to judge between them. This is better than private conferences with legislators, party leaders and bosses, and the use of patronage.

Governor Cummins, of Ohio, one of the progressive and active executives, in addition to a number of state reforms, advocates certain important federal changes A lengthy discussion of the general political and industrial situation leads him to conclusions which he briefly sums up as follows:

I, for one, stand clearly and unequivocally for amendments to the Constitution of the United States; for an amendment that will give the voters a chance to say, directly, who their senator shall be; for an amendment that will give the voters a chance to say, directly, who their President and Vice-President shall be; for an amendment that will give the interstate commerce clause scope enough to enable Congress to control and regulate things which the developments of commerce have nationalized; for an amendment that will allow Congress to unify our marriage and divorce laws.

Railroads, Labor and Commerce

The whole question of federal control and regulation of railroads engaged in interstate commerce—that is, of the limit of the power of Congress in the premises and the definition of commerce-is involved in two cases which have been decided against the government by District Court judges. The cases turned on the constitutionality of the "employers' liability act," passed at the last session of Congress.

That act made the railroads, as employers, responsible for accidents to employes when caused by the inefficiency of officers or other employes or by defective equipment. It is regarded as one of the most important pieces of legislation of the notable session of 1905-6. It is based on the theory that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the relations between the employers and men engaged in such commerce or operating the instrumentalities of it.

But the two judges alluded to decided almost simultaneously that the act was invalid-that is, that Congress had no authority under the commerce clause of the Constitution to enact an employers' liability law. The reasoning is the same in both opinions. Judge McCall of the District Court for Kentucky wrote as follows:

I am unable to bring my mind to the conclusion that the liability of a common carrier to its employes for injuries is interstate commerce or commerce of any character within the meaning of the commerce clause of the Constitution. My conclusion is that Congress is not authorized under that clause to enact this legislation, for the reason that the relation of common carriers engaged in interstate trade or commerce to their employes, and their liability to them in damages for injuries sustained in their employment as the result of the negligence of any of its officers, agents or employes or by reason of any defect or insufficiency due to its negligence in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, way or works, is not commerce within the meaning of the Constitution. But if it were, the act does not undertake to regulate this relation or liability, but simply announces