and supplementary legislation will be urged by many large sections of the community. It will depend on the magnitude of the property at stake, and the earnestness with which its owners prosecute their purpose, whether a substantial modification of the Act be promptly made, or whether the interests of the country generally be destined to remain for a long time subject to gratuitous embarrassment. In the adjustment of commercial and trading relations the American people exhibit a very high degree of shrewdness and sagacity. It can scarcely fail to strike an observer that in the so-called struggle between the railroads and the people each party has in the past substantially obtained pretty much what it wanted and was entitled to have. Only the advanced and fiery politician ever pretended to believe that this struggle was internecine, and must end in Cæsarism on the one hand or socialism on the other. Practical observers regarded such prophecies as nonsensical and inconsistent with the habits and bias of the American people. When legislative obstacles were placed in the path of railroads, they at first strove to break them down and to control legislatures. Failing in many instances to accomplish this result, they compromised with the obstacles in their path in a very sensible way. Like Jacob at Bethel, they used the stones for a pillow and had a very comfortable night. On the other hand, the people were determined to have low rates; and it soon became apparent that they could get them, if they permitted the railroads themselves within rational limits to work out the problem in their own way. They enjoyed, prior to the passage of the Inter-State Commerce Act, the benefit of low rates and a good service. A reasonable modus vivendi had been arrived at, and the great bulk of the community was fairly well satisfied. In the

writer's opinion, the experience of the past affords the best key to the future; and what has happened before in connection with the railroad situation is likely to happen again. If this be so, the new legislation would appear calculated to challenge the vigilance, but not necessarily to excite the alarm, of the foreign investor.

Of course, to the radical politician it is a vital article of faith that, at all times and in all places, "something must be done." It is too much the fashion of the day to represent the merest fads of individual crotcheteers as an essential part of the majestic onward march of some great popular movement. The public are solemnly warned that to resist the noble and impressive procession of events is wilfully to oppose the inevitable. It is true that Gamaliel of old advised his hearers to avoid fighting against God. But, if closely examined, the legislation promoted by the crotcheteer often turns out to be by no means "of God," but very much "of man." The attitude of mind which regards every popular fad or caprice as an expression of the inevitable is apt to degenerate into a sort of dilettante fatalism. Why not examine closely and fearlessly the constituent elements of the supposed popular movement? It may be that what is described as a "majestic procession" will turn out to be a mere masquerade, and that many who pose as patriots are only mummers.

The point of view of the investor is separated from that of the thorough-going political partizan by a broad line of demarcation. Their relative attitude is something like that of the claimants to possession of the child in the familiar "Judgment of Solomon." In America—as in England to-day-the ambitious politician is quite willing that the infant should be cut in halves, if by such an arrangement he can disappoint and "dish" his opponents.

On the contrary, the investor, as such, has no record to maintain and no opponent to "dish"; and he would rather make concessions than see the child vivisected. His consistent desire is not that "something should be done," but that whatever is undertaken be well done.

THE recent Act entitled "An Act to restrict the ownership of real estate in the Territories to American citizens, and so forth," popularly known as the "Alien Land Act," contains provisions of very considerable importance, from the point of view of that class of foreign investors which has, in the past, locked up a large amount of capital in the acquisition of American land. Prior to the passage of the Act, many investors of this class had intended to enlarge their existing investments and to compact and consolidate them by further purchases. Other groups of capitalists, who were not committed in the past but were distrustful of European spheres of investment, had entertained the project of acquiring large blocks of land in America. By persons acquainted with the situation it could not for a moment be doubted that legislation of a restrictive kind would be carried through both Houses of Congress, as soon as the condition of legislative business rendered such a result feasible. It may therefore be hoped that the passage of the Alien Land Bill will create serious disappointment exclusively in the minds of those who failed to interpret the signs of the times. Inasmuch however as the interests involved are substantial, and the provisions of the Act somewhat stringent, it is thought that a copy of the text may form a convenient appendix to the present notes. It will readily appear to the foreign

owner of land in America that, while his future interests are restricted, his investments in the past are not necessarily prejudiced to any serious extent. The limitations imposed by the Act are undoubtedly cogent, and the penalties severe. If the history of the past be wisely interpreted, it may be doubted whether they are altogether wise. But they plainly represent the views of the American people; and therefore elaborate discussion from the investor's point of view would be superfluous-not to say tiresome. The upshot of the Act is shortly this: that the bond fide alien owner of American land can protect legitimate interests already acquired; but that, as regards future enterprises, he is compelled to draw in his horns. The wisdom and expediency of the "twenty-per-cent" limit of course admit of wide difference of opinion. In the writer's view, it is a somewhat premature expression of patriotism at the expense of obvious profit. But; if the American people think that the time has arrived to check foreign investment in land, they are clearly the masters of the position.