sion, longer or shorter, on the question whether the matter in dispute is really susceptible of treatment by arbitration or not. Any such discussion, giving time and room for the cooling of passions, for contemplating the losses and horrors of war, for interposing the teachings of religion, must diminish the number of wars if it does not prevent them altogether. If such space for discussion had been interposed before the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, it would certainly have been prevented, since we now know that the very thing which excited the Paris mob and carried the Government off its feet-the report that King William had refused to hold further intercourse with the French Ambassador-was false. Nobody can count the past and future loss and suffering caused by that headlong error, not to those nations only, but to the human race, since a modern war between two great nations is a curse to all other nations, whether they are directly concerned in it or not."

On the other hand, the New York Sun is one of the journals which wants to know what excuse there is in this country at the present time to advocate the settlement of disagreements between Great Britain and ourselves by arbitration. The Sun says:

"We have no disagreement with England concerning its Venezuela claims which is susceptible of arbitration. There is nothing to arbitrate. Of course, the American policy expressed in the Monroe doctrine can not be referred to arbitration. We must settle such a matter of national policy for ourselves. We can not submit it to foreign criticism. Even if the High Court of Arbitration asked for by these respectable but rather fat-witted 'representative citizens' were established, it could not adjudicate upon the Monroe doctrine. That would be wholly beyond its jurisdiction.

"No really sensible and patriotic citizens will give any heed to the suggestion to celebrate Washington's birthday by making a declaration in favor of the principle of arbitration, which would be construed reasonably as a reflection on the course pursued by our Government in the case of Venezuela, or would constitute an acknowledgment of the right of any foreign state or any international tribunal whatsoever to interfere with a long-established and unalterable American policy. It is a Copperhead and Uitlander suggestion. All Americans who consent to join in such a movement at the present time will render themselves justly liable to a charge of disloyalty.

"If any American citizens have anything to say on behalf of the principle of arbitration, they should say it to Lord Salisbury. This country is already committed to that method of settling those international disputes which can properly or even possibly be arbitrated."

The Voice, New York, having indorsed the suggestion for Washington's birthday celebrations devoted to the idea of "establishing peace between the two countries upon eternal and immovable foundations" as a glorious idea, continues:

"But what we need still more than an international board of arbitration is industrial arbitration between employers and employees. If these men would take the same interest in starting boards of conciliation and arbitration such as have worked with such rare success in the iron industries of England and with the bricklayers of New York, there would be more practical outcome and more genuine peace secured than any international board is likely to give us. War with England, in spite of all the jingoes on both sides of the sea may say or do, is not a probable, tho of course it is a possible, thing; but war between capital and labor is one of the things that is with us constantly, and it is doing more to embitter life, to demoralize industry, and to shake the pillars of society than a foreign war now and then would do. The jingoes are bad enough, but the 'nothing-to-arbitrate' men are Let us have international peace, by all means; but let us have industrial peace also, so far as it is possible.'

worse.

WOMEN ON THE ASCENT OF WOMAN.

WHI

HETHER motherhood is to be considered an incident or the paramount responsibility in the life of the woman of the future is a question discussed from different points of view by women themselves. We find two conflicting opinions expressed in current woman's publications. The first describes a kind of evolutionary emancipation of woman from the burdens of reproduction, the second emphasizes the social need of an educated motherhood.

Dr. Mary Jordan-Finley, in The American Woman's Magazine (February), contends that the struggle between races no longer demands that division of labor whereby one half the race was devoted to rearing the young, and the other half to guarding and providing in the wider sense. The absolute advance of the race, she writes, has been retarded by the c use which retarded the mental processes of one of the sexes; this cause was the necessity for increase of population with a consequent absorption of the energies of the female sex. She asserts that the uniformly relative rate of advance between man and woman heretofore prevailing has been broken by the unprecedented intellectual activity of the female mind in this latter half of the nineteenth century. We quote:

"In spite of the dictum of Darwin that nature never makes leaps, the consensus of opinion among leading scientists to-day is that nature does sometimes go forward with a bound. While progress is uniformly continuous for long periods, at certain points, when changing conditions have reached a climax, enormous advance takes place in a comparatively short space of time. Psychical evolution has the same laws as physical, and in the mental history of the race are we not now in such an epoch of transition?

"What change in man's environment justifies an affirmative answer to this question? It is this: Reproduction no longer requires the entire energies of one half the race. The world is populated; henceforth not increase but maintenance is demanded. The dominion over nature has been achieved. Man is master; he has come into his kingdom and a new era of psychical progress is opening before him. With growing knowledge of the laws of life great plagues have ceased, and epidemics are diminishing; with a developing code of international law and the perfection of the engines of destruction, wars are becoming impossible between petty peoples, less frequent between great nations; with better hygiene, infant mortality is diminishing; and with the checking of the waste of human life, a decreased production will suffice to maintain the population. The time is coming when families of two, three, or four children will be sufficient to keep the earth peopled to its present extent. To bear and rear such a family is but an episode in a woman's life instead of the whole of it. The time which she needs to devote to reproduction is being further shortened by an evolutionary process which no obstetri cian can fail to notice; at the present rate of change the time is not far distant when women will no longer suckle their infants. Among the cultured classes of the most advanced races the proportion of women who now can not nurse their children, and those who can nurse them but a few weeks, is still larger. With the perfection of artificial foods the child is not the loser, while the time during which the mother must devote herself entirely to her offspring is considerably abridged. The care of the child in the years following infancy no longer makes the same demand upon the mother. The preparation of food and clothing is more and more consigned to great establishments where it can be most economically done; churches and schools take a large part of the mental, moral, and physical training of the child, beginning at an early age, and the kindergarten, which will in time be a part of the general public-school system, begins it still earlier. The training of children tends to be more and more given into the hands of specialists, themselves trained for the work.

"The fact that intellectual growth lessens the fertility of women and abridges the period of lactation, has been a source of alarm to many thinkers. But do we not see in it an indication that the time has come when the race can afford to remain sta tionary in numbers in order to go forward with doubled speed in intellectual development? Instead of increase of population con

The

We turn from this view to note that especially for maternity's sake an increase of responsibilities is urged by another woman. closing address at the recent convention of the National Woman's Suffrage Association was made by Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Stetson on "Educated Motherhood." She is represented by The Woman's Home Journal as making "a brilliant and forcible arraignment of the non-education of the average mother for her specific duties:" "Existing social conditions and prejudices have hitherto given women a one-sided and imperfect development, inferior to that of

men.

Women have been condemned to mediocrity by the limitations of their lives. We hear of a few great mothers of a few great men, but not of the many small-souled mothers of the many little men. Women need to emerge from their limitations, and to come into touch with wider interests. Even as mothers they have not yet learned their profession, as is shown by the fact that one fourth of all the children born die within one year, and one half of all born die within five years. Think what a waste of vitality! It is generally supposed that because mother-love is an instinct superior to reason, therefore the ability to nurture and educate children comes by nature. Nothing can be more untrue. What social evolution most needs is an educated motherhood. And nothing will educate women but a wider range of thoughts and interests. Suffrage will tend to give women the larger liberty they need, and thereby will help to fit them for the responsibilities of maternity."

QUAY AS A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

SEN

ENATOR MATTHEW STANLEY QUAY'S announcement that he has consented to be a candidate for the Republican nomination for President appears to have been generally accepted, outside his own State, merely as a shrewd move to keep the State delegation in hand for trading purposes.

So far as the Republican Party of his own State (Pennsylvania) is concerned, whatever opposition there may be to his candidacy is, it would seem, as yet not outspoken. Governor Hastings, whose faction failed last year in the attempt to defeat Quay for the State chairmanship after one of the most bitter of political party fights, declares that he is for Quay. Quay is treated as a sort of political hero in the party papers throughout the State. The Philadelphia Inquirer, which favored Reed of Maine until Senator Quay came out, extols its hero thus:

"Senator Quay never does anything by halves. Last summer he found himself opposed by a secret and disreputable conspiracy, engineered by lobbyists and political bosses of the two great cities of the State, the object of which was to complete his political destruction. He faced this conspiracy when it was at the height of its power and gave battle to it. In a few short words he made the announcement to his friends: 'I am a candidate for chairman of the State committee and I ask your support. In a few days he had made great inroads upon the enemy. In a few weeks he had beaten them to a standstill. They had resorted to bribery and corruption of the worst kind. Their greatest effort was to attempt to purchase for $10,000 the Montgomery delegation. Over all such methods he triumphed. Probably the most heroic thing in American politics was the manner in which Quay faced

his enemy.

"Now he comes out in as terse a statement and announces: 'I have consented that my name shall go before the National convention. This means that he will throw himself into the fight with as much vigor as he opposed the conspirators of a few months ago. It is due to the sturdy Republicanism of Pennsylvania that the value of this State to the Union should be recognized. Quay is to-day a leading exponent of American sentiment, and he would give to the United States an administration of which this country could be proud."

Colonel McClure's Philadelphia Times (Ind.) assures those who think that Quay is fooling that they will find out that he is in the fight for business, not for trading:

"Those who suppose that Senator Quay has suddenly entered the Presidential race to accomplish some secondary purpose don't know the man. He doesn't play marbles in politics, and he is a Presidential candidate solely because he has assurance of strength not now visible on the surface, and he is likely to be among the strongest candidates on the first ballot in the National convention. "Stranger things have happened than Quay's nomination for President. The men in Pennsylvania who less than a year ago formed a combination to throttle him and fling him clear outside of the political ropes, have made him a leader of leaders. They aroused the slumbering lion and to-day those who were most vindictive and defamatory of him only a few months since, are now crawling into the rear of the Quay procession and trying to shout louder for Quay than his most devoted friends. .. Quay will be earnestly pressed for the nomination rather than for the purpose of opening a trading-post for a second-choice candidate. If he can win he will; if he can't, he will make the President, and it is possible that while more than willing to accept the office, he would be quite content to name another as the next Executive of the Republic.

"

'Quay is in the fight for business, not for trading, nor for the bauble of distinction as a Presidential candidate. He will develop strength in quarters not now indicated, and it goes without saying, now that he has shown his hand, that he has been covering the fields for months past, and preparing to exploit his candidacy in the fulness of time. That time has come; Quay is in the field; he is in the field for Quay, and of this fact bidders and owners should take notice."

Referring to the attitude publicly taken by Senator Quay in order to win his fight for the State chairmanship, the Pittsburg Dispatch (Rep.) says:

"Quay's Presidential availability being based on the stand he made against money in politics, for the abolition of jobbery, the wiping out of favoritism in legislation, and the purification of politics, it is plain that whatever is done to push him for that position must be based on the continuation and completion of the

complications. The Freie Presse is strongly Republican, and anything likely to hurt the prestige of the United States Government rouses its ire. The paper says:

"It is only just and proper if we defend our fellow citizens and our business in foreign countries against chicanery. But it seems to us very foolish to leave the decision whether foreign business concerns should be allowed to continue their work here to a single official. Apart from the fact that it is unjust to subject large business interests to the will of one man, the action of this one man may cause complications with foreign powers. It would seem more sensible to leave the adjustment of foreign affairs to the United States Government. If every individual State is allowed to meddle in such matters we may expect that Rhode Island will get us into a war with half a dozen European powers, and we Chicagoans would have to ‘go and fight like h——' about a matter in which our own representatives had nothing to say."

There is another interesting phase to this question. The American companies engaged Mr. Poultney Bigelow to act for them in Germany. This gentleman is personally known to the Emperor, and it was thought that his influence could be used to advantage. The Staats-Zeitung accuses Mr. Bigelow of making capital out of his supposed friendly intercourse with the Emperor, but points out that the mere hint that "pull" could be of use in doing business in Germany naturally roused the German authorities. Hence Mr. Bigelow was not even granted an audience.

As the Staats-Zeitung is an ardent supporter of the views held by Eugen Richter and the Freisinnigen, whose opposition to the German Government is well known, its expressions carry weight. The paper says:

Nor can

"Mr. Bigelow would not have been entrusted with this mission if he had not conveyed the impression that he could obtain favors from the Emperor. . . . Pity that such a respectable paper as Harper's Weekly defends him by making assertions which show its ignorance, such as that Bigelow's articles on the German struggle for liberty created a bad impression in Germany. We can assure Harper's Weekly that the Germans who read these articles thought them very amusing. Any German college boy knows more about the matter than Mr. Bigelow. the tendency of his articles insult German princes, for the German people know all the facts from their own writers, who do not handle the princes any more gently than did Mr. Bigelow. How he acts is shown by his assertion that the German papers are mostly in the pay of the Government, and print what is given them without murmuring. And such nonsense is published in Harper's Weekly! Then the accusation that the American Ambassador can not succeed because he does not speak German well enough. As if there were not plenty of people in Germany who are fully master of English!"

A

WHERE THE ANTI-TRUST LAW FAILS. TTORNEY-GENERAL HARMON states the weaknesses of the present anti-trust law, in response to a resolution of inquiry from the House of Representatives, as follows:

"The Act of July, 1890, known as the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, as construed by the Supreme Court, does not apply to the most complete monopolies acquired by unlawful combination of concerns which are naturally competitive, tho they, in fact, control the markets of the entire country, if engaging in interstate commerce be merely one of the incidents of their business and not its direct and immediate object. The virtual effect of this is to exclude from the operation of the law manufacturers and producers of every class, and probably importers also.

"As a matter of fact, no attempt to secure monopoly or restrain trade and commerce could possibly succeed without extending itself largely, if not entirely, over the country. So that while engaging in interstate commerce may not be the direct or immediate object, it is a necessary step in all such undertakings. While Congress has no authority in the matter except what is derived from the power to regulate commerce, the States alone having general power to prevent and punish such commercial combinar tions and conspiracies, Congress may make it unlawful to ship

from one State to another, in carrying out or in attempting to carry out designs of such organizations, articles produced, owned, or controlled by them or any of their members or agents.

"The limitation of the present law enables those engaged in such attempts to escape from both State and Federal governments, the former having no authority over the interstate commerce and the latter having authority over nothing else. By supplementing State action in the way suggested Congress can accomplish the proposed object of the present law."

The Attorney-General further suggests that the terms “monopolies," "attempting to monopolize,” “conspiracy," etc., be defined beyond doubt by law, that the refusal of witnesses to answer on the ground of self-incrimination should be prevented, and that the penalties should be applicable only to general officers, managers, and agents, and not to subordinates. The duty of detecting this class of offenses can not be undertaken by the Department of Justice, he says, unless there be provided a liberal appropriation and a force properly selected and organized:

"It is well known that while it is quite easy to detect and prove combinations of workmen because of their large numbers and methods which they necessarily adopt, time, care, and skill are required to obtain legal proof of combinations and conspiracies among producers and dealers, who are few in number and able to resort to skilful and secret methods."

The Fundamental Weakness."The Attorney-General makes out a good case for his department. The fundamental weakness of the Sherman law is that it can not touch the manufacturing of goods by monopolies. Since the courts have so stated in a specific case [American Sugar Refining Company] it has been idle to expect that anything could be done without an amendment of the law. The amendment which is proposed-the exclusion of such goods from interstate traffic-wouldgive the national authorities abundant power to put an end to trusts of large dimensions. The responsibility then would be clear.

"In a report of this character it was not necessary that Mr. Harmon should enter at length upon the principle of policy which should govern Congress in enacting a better law. It is his business to suggest how more efficient administration can be secured. But he indicates in a few words what must be that principle if legislation of a just nature is to be passed. Combinations are not all alike. If they come about as trusts, they are illegal, for corporations are chartered only to do definite acts, one of which is not to give their business into the hands of other individuals. But nothing in the power of the State can prevent the growth of particular industries into a size which often has the characteristics of monopoly. What the State has to do is to say whether that growth is natural or is attained through injustice to competitors. If the industry does not interfere with the equal rights of competitors, and succeeds by its own better and more economical methods, it can not be assailed on any sound principle. When, however, it is shown to be succeeding through the restraint of competition, it then becomes a fit subject for attack by the officers of the Government. It is this principle which should hold in defining, as Congress is asked to define, what a monopoly is."The Express (Rep.), Buffalo, N. Y.

Pretended War on Trusts.-"The Attorney-General must have known, as well as the House knows, that the whole business was merely pretense, and that the House has no real purpose, as the Attorney-General has no real power, to interfere with the exactions of trusts. Many of the members of the House were elected by contributions made to their campaign funds by leading trusts, and being resolved not to legislate against their friends adopted the expedient of asking the Attorney-General why the trusts were not suppressed.

"The Sherman anti-trust law was intended to serve as what is called 'a tub to the whale.' There had been a good deal of complaint in political circles about trusts, of which the Sugar Trust was the most odious. A tariff bill was under consideration. The House tariff bill gave the trust an enormous bounty at the expense of the people, and the Senate proposed to increase it. The stock of the Sugar Trust, in which many Congressmen were speculating, was bounding up under the stimulus of the expected action of Congress. But there was some dissatisfaction among the people, and Senator Sherman was called on to suppress it. He was expected to do this without hurting any trust. He there

Worthless Law as It Stands.-"It is somewhat reassuring to learn that the many complaints which have been received by the department of justice regarding alleged trusts, combinations, and monopolies have not, as has been commonly supposed, wholly ignored by that department. The Attorney-General says he has endeavored to investigate these complaints as well as the means at his disposal permitted, and that some such investigations are now in progress, while two actions are pending based partly or wholly on alleged violations of the Sherman act. The public will be glad to be disabused of the impression that the legal department of the Government has not been entirely-indifferent in this -matter, even tho the promise of results in the public interest from the efforts to enforce the law does not appear to be very favorable.

"The suggestions of Attorney-General Harmon will enable Congress to improve the anti-trust law, and it is presumed that an effort will be made to do this, for manifestly it is worthless as it stands. They should also impress upon State legislatures the duty and necessity of such action as it is within their authority to take."-The Bee (Rep.), Omaha, Neb.

No Such Thing as Monopoly.-"New combinations are constantly being formed, and old ones, stoutly entrenched behind legal defenses, continue to extend their relations into new territories and new lines of industrial effort. Mr. Harmon does not suggest any distinct and feasible methods of legal repression to Congress; if the hint that Congress may prohibit interstate transportation of the products of such monopolies be excepted. This suggestion, indeed, presents an alternative more mischievous than the evil complained of. Once started upon such a course of interference with the free interchange of domestic products, it would be difficult to curb the headlong pace of Congressional action.

"In the judgment of the Federal courts, as recorded in various decisions, and quoted approvingly by the chief of the Department of Justice, there can be no such thing as monopoly in this country, unless there be a restriction or disability imposed by law on those who might desire to enter the field of competition. 'Property,' as Mr. Olney observed, 'is monopoly.' To this doctrine his successor in office readily and cheerfully subscribes."The News (Ind.), Newark, N. J.

this investigation. The Senate objected to this selection and passed a vote of censure on the Government. The Chamber of Deputies thereupon by a large majority passed a vote of confidence. The Ministry decided not to resign, and the Lower House reaffirming its confidence the Upper House has decided to waive what it claims as its constitutional rights, and will continue to act with the Chamber on proposals made by the Ministry.

We append a number of American press comments on the trouble:

Why the Radical Ministry is Supported.-"M. Bourgeois [Premier] and his colleagues, altho they represent opinions held by only a fraction of those who call themselves Republicans, have not only managed to maintain themselves in office, but have performed executive functions with unexpected efficiency. For the protectorate established by their predecessors over Madagascar they have substituted so close an approach to annexation that the control of the island has been transferred from the War Office to the Colonial Office; they have also arranged with Great Britain so satisfactory a partition of the region lying between Siam and China that perfidious Albion has of late ceased to be an object of invective in Parisian newspapers. They have, moreover, so thoroughly convinced the French people of their sincere and inflexible determination to probe the canal and railway scandals that the avowed and secret friends of the corruptionists were unable to hinder them from obtaining on Thursday from the Chamber a vote of confidence by the amazing majority of 283.

"This vote in the popular branch of the legislature was the more impressive because, the other day, the Senate, in which the Opportunists are dominant, expressed disapproval of the course pursued by M. Ricard, Minister of Justice, in the investigation of the Southern Railway frauds. What M. Ricard did was to designate for the conduct of the inquiry, not the judge on whom it would regularly have devolved, but another, believed to be of a less pliable and less sympathetic character. The friends of the accused persons took alarm at this substitution, and professed fear that the Cabinet had in view, not an impartial examination, but a vindictive persecution. In the debate on the matter in the Chamber, M. Ricard took the bull by the horns, and frankly pleaded guilty of vindictiveness, provided the word was applicable to his unflinching resolve to let no bribe-taker escape. In an attempt to reply, ex-Premier Rouvier, who has no reputation to lose, opined that the Ministers were aiming to sully the reputation of their opponents; but only forty-two members of the Chamber were brazen enough to side with him in opposing the vote of confidence."-The Sun, New York.

The Power and Authority of the Senate.-"The crisis is novel indeed, but rather in degree than in kind. The French Senate has before this had differences with the Chamber of Deputies, in which the latter has as a rule come off victorious. . The Senate is something more than a revisionary body. It has not only the prerogatives usually given to upper houses of legislatures but a power that may give it the determining voice in certain crises. By the constitution the President of the Republic is given power to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies by and with the consent of the Senate. This power was evidently intended to make the Senate a conservative body, in which, in the event of an anarchical Chamber disturbing social order, the final authority