takes the view that, while the founders of the Government had no intention of placing any limit on the time of Presidential service, the people, "that great tribunal before which, in our country, all public issues must sooner or later be tried," have condemned the judgment of their forefathers and amended the written Constitution by an unwritten one which, among other things, prohibits a third term. At the close of a review of our history on the subject, Mr. McMaster expresses his own opinion

as follows:

"The fears which tormented the founders of the Republic have long since vanished. We do not believe that our Democratic institutions can ever be subverted by any occupant of the White House. We stand in no dread that the day will come when some successful general or some unscrupulous politician will first seize the Presidency and then use its great power to set up a life-long dictatorship, or establish a kingdom, on the ruins of the Republic. Yet there is no reason to believe that the old-time antipathy to a third term is one whit less strong than it ever was. Any sane man will admit that the bank, or the railroad company, or the corporation of any sort that should dismiss a tried and able president merely because the stockholders had twice placed him in the executive chair, would deserve financial ruin. No tendency in the business world is more marked than the constant effort to find men preeminently fitted to carry on certain lines of business, and to place the management of such concerns entirely in their hands. But the common-sense rules which govern the selection of the president of a corporation do not apply in the election of a President of the United States. Our Presidents are not chosen because of their fitness, but because of their availability. Some are dark-horses; some are nominated because they alone can reconcile contending factions; some because they can carry pivotal States. Others are forced on the voters by the machine. In theory this is all wrong. In practise no harm comes from it. Under our system of government we do not want, we do not need, a President of extraordinary ability. The average man is good enough, and for him two terms is ample. We want a strong government of the people by the people, not a government of the people by a strong man, and we ought not to tolerate anything which has even the semblance of heredity. The advocates of a third term for Mr. Cleveland will do well to remember the doctrine of the illustrious founder of their party, that in no office can rotation be more expedient."

Defenseless Lake Cities.-General Miles dwells in his last annual report on the defenseless conditions of our cities on the great lakes. Buffalo, Cleveland, Chicago, Toledo, Milwaukee, and many other cities are said to be at the mercy of any attacking power. The press generally supports General Miles in his plea for large appropriations for coast defenses, altho the situ ation is not regarded as especially alarming. Referring to the matter, the Chicago Times-Herald says: "Inasmuch as we have the same opportunities not only for fortifying but for making aggressive attacks as the Canadians would have, there is very little reason for immediate alarm. As at present constituted neither one side nor the other has any 'ironclads' or offensive vessels of any kind that could do much damage against defenses that might be reared in a single night. The beginning of a war is not a matter of sudden temper, and long before any offensive operations could be set on foot our cities could be amply protected, even if they might be reached. It is sometimes foolishly said that Great Britain could send a fleet into the lakes through the St. Lawrence and Welland Canal, but what would we be doing while such an attempt was being made? We could in a day erect fortifications on the banks of those waterways that would stop the most powerful fleet in the world. But however that may be, General Miles is within the lines of duty in laying the situation before the Government. Whether we are in any danger at present or not, it is worth while considering our rights and privileges on the lakes. If the Canadian authorities are secretly building ships that may of 1817, that fact should be and must be ascertained." be used for hostile purposes, in contravention of the arrangement

Campaign cry in 1892: Cleveland or bust!
Campaign cry in 1895: Cleveland and bust!

-Mail and Express, New York.

T°

MAYOR PINGREE'S VINDICATION.

the country at large, the reelection of Mayor H. S. Pingree, of Detroit, by a large majority, was one of the surprises of election day, altho in Detroit the result was never in doubt. Owing to some radical utterances on the question of labor, monopoly, and corporations, Mr. Pingree had been denounced by a considerable section of the

daily press, including that of Detroit, as a mischievous "crank" and disturber, and his repudiation by the people had been confidently predicted. He is the author of the "potatopatch" idea, or the employment of idle men on vacant city lots, which is said to be successful in a number of cities, and his agitation for a reduction in the fare of street railways to three cents has also attracted considerable attention. His popularity in Detroit caused the Republicans to nominate him for the fourth time, while the Democrats nominated in opposition to him a man with pronounced Socialistic tendencies, Mr. Goldwater. Mr. Pingree's triumph has already led to some talk about his candidacy for the gubernatorial nomination next year. We present some comments on this interesting mu

nicipal election:

H. S. PINGREE.

A Man of Destiny.-"The result is a tremendous personal victory for Mayor Pingree, first of all. It is in a sense a vindication as well.

"The theory upon which the Democrats made their nomination for mayor held that Mr. Pingree was popular by reason of his fancied inclination to violent and revolutionary undertakings. A candidate was selected by the opposition who would outbid the mayor in that direction. A candidate was selected who was best known as an agitator with anarchistic leanings.

"The utter rout of the democracy proves pretty conclusively that the people have not elected Mr. Pingree four times to the office of mayor because they want to have anarchists in authority. The way they flocked to the polls yesterday and voted against Alderman Goldwater indicates that they are tolerably anxious not to have anarchists in authority.

'The mayor will have behind him during his fourth administration a council thoroughly committed to his support. His influence has dominated in every ward, and even the Democratic members-elect will hardly find it in their hearts to oppose Mr. Pingree in whatever he undertakes.

"It would be hard to find another instance of such complete ascendancy as the mayor holds. The election of yesterday adds to a series of remarkable triumphs, the most remarkable triumph of all. If Hazen S. Pingree is not a man of destiny, he certainly has not failed of the symptoms."-The Tribune (Rep.), Detroit.

antagonized it would have been very difficult to beat him. The nomination of Goldwater was nevertheless a mistake. He has made a better run than many of his best friends dared to hope for. He has won golden opinions by the moderation and temperateness of his discourse, and satisfied the public generally that altho a Socialist he is very far from being the dangerous man so many regarded him."-The Free Press (Dem.), Detroit.

Philanthropy and Potatoes Stronger than Newspapers and Politicians. "The reelection of Mayor Pingree in Detroit in face of what once seemed overwhelming odds is undoubtedly due to philanthropy, push, and potatoes. Without push and potatoes philanthropy might have been useless. Without potatoes and philanthropy push would have been in vain. But combined the three made him invincible. His foot is on the neck of his enemies and the horn of his triumph is greatly exalted.

"Only a little while ago every newspaper in Detroit was busily engaged in exposing Pingree as a crank, and a dangerous one at that. The politicians had no use for him. Those who believe that nothing succeeds like success turned, their backs on him. But the man who fails and then takes a fresh grip is, as the poet has truly said, a twin-born brother of such men as Pingree. Without the newspapers, without the politicians, with nothing but his potato patches, his philanthropy, and his push, he has succeeded in convincing the people that he is on their side, and they have patted him on the back and sent him into the ring for another round.

"They are to be congratulated, and so is he. Pingree is frequently admirable and always interesting enough to be a desirable element in what might otherwise become the prosy politics of this country. ."—The World (Dem.), New York.

T1

IMPORTANT STEP IN CIVIL-SERVICE
REFORM.

HE latest civil-service order issued by the President is generally welcomed as a measure of far-reaching consequences. Many see in it the greatest blow to the "spoils system" that has yet been delivered. Under this new rule all minor postoffices which are near enough to a free-delivery office may be brought within the classified service, and the Postmaster-General may divide the country into large postal districts, grouped around metropolitan centers, the management of each district being entrusted to an official outside the civil-service law. This plan is to be tried in a tentative way first and gradually extended to all post-offices within range of free-delivery offices. It is believed that nearly 75 per cent. of all the post-offices in the country will eventually be brought under the classified service. Apart from the "reform" aspects of the measure, it is expected that the efficiency of the postal service will be greatly increased. The Springfield Republican (Ind.) says:

"Much time will of course be required to put the plan into full operation, and it will be years no doubt before the service can be entirely reorganized on the lines laid down. But a step has been taken of profound importance to civil-service reform. We may almost say that the reform will then have attained a full mastery of the service of the United States. That service on the first of this year comprehended some 200,000 employees of all kinds and classes. Some 50,000 of these had already been brought within the classified service, and the number has been considerably added to since by of order President Cleveland. Some 32,000 more, including 22,000 laborers, are expressly excluded from classification by the civil-service law. mainder, 66,380, or more than one half, are fourth-class postmasters, who will gradually be brought within the classified service as the present plan of systematizing the postal service is developed.

Of the re

The New York World (Dem.) states that the President also intends "to abolish by an executive order the purely arbitrary fouryear term of fourth-class postmasters, leaving the incumbents to served during good behavior and providing for the appointment of their successors on the recommendation of a majority of the patrons of the office." The New York Evening Post (Ind.) thinks the idea of consolidation excellent, and says:

"This change alone would be certain to give better service, but when with it we have fixity of tenure, with political 'pulls' of all kinds eliminated from the selection and removal of all incumbents, the gain becomes incalculable. Then, too, the post-offices of the country will be removed from national politics. There will be no use, after this reform shall have been accomplished, for an official 'headsman,' like Clarkson in Harrison's time, in the Post-Office Department at Washington. That quadrennial scandal will disappear permanently from our politics, to the great joy of the American people.”

A

DANGER OF FIRE-PROOF BUILDINGS.

DISASTROUS fire recently occurred in New York, on Broadway, and one of the many buildings destroyed was one-the Manhattan Savings Bank building-supposed to be fireproof. It was not of the steel cage or skeleton type, but had stoutbearing walls holding up the iron girders upon which the floors were laid. Having been constructed prior to the building law of 1892, which makes rigid provisions for safety, the iron beams and girders were exposed and had no fire-proof covering. The heat from an old building on the opposite corner acted on the exposed iron and caused it to expand, thus forcing out the ends of the beams and girders from their resting-places and causing a collapse of the entire building. The roof and the floors c came down with a crash. Chief Bonner, of the Fire Department, has been interviewed on the subject, and he has expressed some startling opinions with regard to the condition of most fire-proof structures. We quote part of his statement:

"Architects and builders should be compelled to cover all their structural ironwork with non-conducting material, whether it be brick or cement, or any other material of like nature which has been properly tested. No building can be properly regarded as safe until this is done, and thoroughly done at that.

"It is true that the law of 1892 requires that the ironwork should be covered with fire-proof material. But this law is not observed. It is not sufficiently mandatory. Its penalties are not great enough. In making laws for the Building Department there is an infinite number of opposing interests to be considered. From my point of view there are only two-the saving of life and the protection of property. Architects build their plans on theory. I speak from an experience as a fireman for thirty years. If these architects would leave their offices and inspect the ruins of a fire-proof building within twenty-four hours of the starting of the blaze, they would learn more of the requirements of their profession than they ever knew before.

"I am prepared to declare from my experience that a building of brick and yellow pine, in case of fire, is easier to manage, and the contents have more chance of being saved than the modern fire-proof building. In the former structure the fire burns more. slowly and has no chance to concentrate its heat as in the iron. and steel structure.

"Our men can get in it. They know from experience the direction of the flames. They have a chance to escape, and are not confronted with the continual danger that the structure will be pulled down by its own weight about their ears. We might easily have had twenty-five of our men killed in the Manhattan Bank fire by the destruction of the floor and the warping of the girders. The architects and builders don't think of this-they're after their profits, and the law should restrain them.

"My belief is—and my reasons for it were emphatically demonstrated by the Manhattan fire-that a fire in a fire-proof building is more dangerous in itself and to surrounding structures than in the old-fashioned structure. If a fire starts in the lower part of a modern building and it is not got under control at once, it can not be fought from the upper floors of the same building.

The

The

fire is usually concentrated in a comparatively small area. heat ascends very rapidly and goes to the top of the structure, acting directly upon the exposed ironwork and either warping or expanding it, so that the beams and girders are no longer capable of upholding the weight of the fire-proof flooring and partitions. The water which is used for the purpose of combating the flames when turned into this oven becomes steam and makes it impossible for the firemen to come within reach of the burning building. When a fire in any lower floor of a modern building gains headway, it will do much less damage if permitted to burn out than if the upper floors are flooded. I certainly would not take the responsibility of risking the lives of the firemen in my command in the upper part of a fire-proof building when once the flames had secured control of the lower part."

46

These views have created a sensation, and builders and architects are understood to differ with Chief Bonner. The insurance companies have announced that rates on fire-proof buildings will be materially advanced, and changes in the building law are being vigorously advocated in the press. We give a few comments below:

Regulation of "Sky-Scrapers."-"Chief Bonner is not an alarmist, and this was his calm and decided expression of his views. Assuming, therefore, that a fire gets control of a lower floor of a modern 'sky-scraper,' it is not an impossibility that it should topple over into the street. It is therefore of importance

that these abnormally tall structures should not be occupied either for manufacturing purposes or have placed in them very much inflammable merchandise or other material. It would seem safer to restrict their occupancy to offices and other non-hazardous

uses.

"Let us suppose that a fire does gain control of the lower floors of one of the high, tower-like edifices, how are the occupants of the upper floors to escape? They can not be reached by scalingladders, and no matter how many firemen stretched taut the lifesaving nets, the victims would crash through if they happened to land on them, a by no means easy feat even were they not rendered frantic by their almost hopeless situation. It is unreason

able to assume that the elevators would continue running, or that the stairways could be utilized, and so the unfortunates who had taken upper stories on account of the pure air and fine view would have a very slight chance of saving their lives.

"From an artistic and sanitary point of view, it must be said that these steel-cage structures have room for improvement. They make the streets dark, particularly when they are already narrow, and thus force the increased use of artificial light. The air does not circulate in the street as freely as it otherwise would, and sunlight, so necessary to health, does not have much opportunity to reach the street level for any length of time, where both sides of the street are thus built up.”—Journal of Commerce,

New York.

The Dangers Greatly Exaggerated.—“The Fire Department is, from the nature of its office, the severest critic of construction in this city, and its position toward fire-proof construction, that is, building with metal and brick and stone, is not one of antago nism. This position, as obtained from the Chief of the Department by us in personal conversation, is that the Department can not cope with fires originating in buildings above twelve stories; that the greatest danger to the modern buildings is from the outside rather than the inside. Fires originating in buildings partitioned off by fire-proof material are practically inoffensive except to the apartment in which they occur. Consequently

one office building offers no menace to another, but as soon as any one is altered for mercantile purposes it is a danger to the others. But this only refers to the danger that exists at all times in great cities, where a multiplicity of causes may be at work unseen to produce catastrophes, and does not for a moment indicate that the minimum of such danger is not further reduced by the fire-proof construction.

"Fire-proofing suffers more than anything from misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise. For intentional misrepresentation We have no excuse to offer; it can not be too strongly reprobated. Of the unintentional misrepresentation the Manhattan Savings Bank building appears to be an example.

When erected it more

than complied with the condition of the law at the time, but it was not fire-proof as the term is accepted by constructors of to

day. Yet so much of it as was composed of fire-proof material stood the test of the fire. The flames entered every story through the windows and destroyed the woodwork and general contents, but the ceilings remained intact except that of the seventh story, which was borne down by the weight of the eighth story and the roof in their fall through the warping of a girder. From this it is reasonably certain that had the fire started in the Manhattan Savings Bank building it could have been confined to the floor in which it broke out, and the argument is strengthened that had all the metal been covered by fire-proofing the damage would have been less than it was. The reasonable deduction from all the facts and the lesson impressed by them is that the two materials, metal for strength and fire-proof clay compositions to resist the action of heat combined properly, will give all the protection possible and which can be demanded."—Record and Guide, New York.

The "Chicago Idea" and Its Critics.-"Bonner carries his denunciation of modern buildings beyond the limits of reasonable criticism. The Manhattan Bank building caught fire from the radiation of heat arising from a fire across the street. A wooden or brick building of the same height would have had its upper stories melted off in half the time. The fault with the bank building was not that it was constructed of steel, but that the steel was enveloped in a thin shell of terra-cotta, which conducted the heat directly to the girders, and the upper story was filled with inflammable material, which blazed up when the windows were broken.

"If the frame had been well protected by a good brick wall there would have been no fire 'across the street.' And that is the secret of the fire-proof office building. The framework has nothing to do with it. Indoors the chances of fire are limited by the use of non-combustible material, while the danger of ignition from the outside is reduced to a minimum by the brick wall. Most of the prominent office buildings in this city are constructed in this manner, and it may be of interest to the critics of 'the Chicago idea' to know that altho fires have started in a number of high structures, while others have been assailed by conflagration, in neighboring buildings, no considerable loss has ever been recorded.

"The steel construction carefully protected is the safest and strongest. Properly provided with stand-pipes and elevators, well enveloped in non-combustible material, provided with an interior construction of iron and marble, and within easy call of the Fire Department, the 'sky-scraper'—that is, the familiar type of the Chicago office building which has been carelessly copied abroad is wind-proof, cyclone-proof, bomb-proof, earthquakeproof, and, above all else, fire-proof, as far as any human tenement can be rendered fire-proof."— Times-Herald, Chicago.

Dunraven's Charges of Fraud.-Yachting circles are considerably agitated over the charges made by Lord Dunraven against Mr. Iselin, of the Defender, and the committee which regulated the racing contest between the English and American yachts. Lord Dunraven says that between the time of the official measurement of the yachts and the hour for starting the first race, enough additional ballast was taken surreptitiously on board the Defender to cause her to sink four inches deeper and add a foot to her length on water line, that this variation was noticed by several persons, and that a remeasurement was demanded and refused by the committee. The first race was thus fraudulently won, according to Lord Dunraven. Mr. Iselin indignantly denies these charges and characterizes them as lies and blackguardly insinuations. The New York Yacht Club will take official action in regard to the matter. The English press, with a few exceptions, regrets that Lord Dunraven has made such grave accusations without any proof, and fears that yachting will suffer in consequence of this "injudicious and unsportsmanlike" course. The American papers are very indignant and bitterly denounce Lord Dunraven. The Spirit of the Times, New York, says: Against this extraordinary charge there may be advanced the following facts: First, the Defender was too stiff for her sail-spread in such light weather as met the first race, and her managers would have preferred to lighten rather than to load her. Second, the hoisting in and out of so many tons of ballast in the crowded basin where the Defender anchored before and after the race could not have escaped the observation of many interested people. Third, the managers of the Defender and the committee of the New York Yacht Club are not thieves. We hope to hear at an early date that Dunraven has been adjudged insane, and sent to some asylum, for if he be not crazy he is certainly the most scurrilous cad that ever crawled into the society of gentlemen."

E

THE CHRISTIAN SUNDAY AND THE

SALOONS.

XCISE revision may be one of the vital questions with which Since the new New York Legislature will have to deal. the election both Republican and Democratic journals have been calling for excise reform, and it is suggested that the Committee of Fifty as well as the German-Americans should lose no time in starting a "campaign of education" for the purpose of compelling the passage of a law giving large cities the right to settle the question each for itself. In view of this revival of the agitation, a symposium in The Independent on the general subject of the Christian Sunday will be found specially interesting. Among the contributors are: Cardinal Gibbons, Professor Thayer, Professor Zahn, the Catholic philosopher, Dr. Leonard W. Bacon, Mr. Warner Miller, and many others. We present extracts from the more important articles below:

The Christian Sunday a Golden Mean.-"The Christian Sunday is not to be confounded with the Jewish Sabbath. It prescribes the golden mean between rigid sabbatarianism on the one hand, and lax indulgence on the other. The Lord's Day to the Catholic heart is always a day of joy. The church desires us on that day to be cheerful without dissipation, grave and religious without sadness and melancholy. She forbids, indeed, all unnecessary servile work on that day; but as 'the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath,' she allows such work whenever charity or necessity may demand it. And as it is a day consecrated not only to religion, but also to relaxation of mind and body, she permits us to spend a portion of it in innocent recreation."―James Cardinal Gibbons.

No "Law of the Sabbath" for Christians.-"In strictness of speech, for the Christian there is no 'law of the Sabbath.' The Sabbath is an integral and distinctive part of Judaism; and Judaism for the Christian is 'antiquated and abrogated' by Christianity. The term 'Sabbath,' to be sure, is largely used in certain circles to designate the Christian day of rest, which is more accurately called 'the Lord's Day,' 'the first day of the week,' or, in secular speech, 'Sunday.' But there is no warrant in the records of primitive Christianity-either in the words of our Lord and of His Apostles, or in extra-canonical literature— for the allegation that this Christian day of rest was ever identi. fied with the Jewish, or regarded as its continuation, or invested with its sacredness, or upheld by the positive enactments and sanctions connected with the Sabbath in the earlier Scriptures.

"For a Christian man, then, there is no 'law of the Sabbath :' I, because the Sabbath is a Jewish institution; 2, because the Christian is free from the obligations of the Jewish law; and 3, because the teaching and practise of the Christian Church for centuries indisputably and abundantly substantiates these positions."-Prof. J. Henry Thayer, of Harvard University Divinity School.

Sunday Essentially a Day of Joy.-"It never entered the minds of the Christians of the first three centuries to regard Sunday as a continuation of the Jewish Sabbath, or to call it the Sabbath. Not until the fourth and fifth centuries do we find the beginnings of this way of regarding the subject. The early Christians called it not Sunday, but the Lord's Day. If we should ask the Christians of the first centuries, the oldest witnesses of the idea of Sunday, for the special reason why they observed just this day, they will answer with great unanimity, We celebrate this day because Christ on this day arose from the dead. Sunday was a weekly recurring Easter festival. Therefore, too, it was in every particular conceived as a day of joy. That on these festival days ordinary work was left aside as much as posBut it is significant for the earliest idea of Sunday that in the earliest church literature there is virtually nothing said about this point. Even as late as the fourth century nothing is said except that as far as possible Sunday should be marked by rest from labor."-Prof. Th. Zahn, University of Erlängen.

sible was a matter of course.

The True Sabbath or None at all, the Alternatives. "The choice of the hour lies between a return to the Sabbath and the triumph of the Continental Sunday. History has written that

verdict, and it is useless to dally and complain. The observers of Sunday have no common ground of union or concert of action. Rome rejoices to help as opportunity offers, thus strengthening herself and her Sunday. Reliance on the civil law has always Historifostered holidayism and destroyed true Sabbathism. cally and logically there is a direct relation between the nolawism which has driven out the Sabbath, and that social and political anarchy which we so much dread. Anarchists rejoice to know that the Ten Commandments were 'Jewish only.' When Christians discard the Decalogue of God, they teach the ungodly to defy the human law. Anarchists are bred where centuries of no-Sabbathism are ripe with ruin.

"Like causes produce like results. The holiday Sunday was born and bred under the theory that the Sabbath is 'Jewish,' only. That is the fundamental doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and the actual if not the avowed position of most Protestants. The prevalence of the Continental Sunday in the United States is due to this teaching by Christians, more than to any other cause. The growth of Sabbathless holidayism will not cease until Christians cease from this error and return to the truth that the Sabbath belongs to all men and to all times. The only Sabbatic regard which Sunday has ever gained was when its adherents occupied the Seventh-day Baptist position concerning the Ten Commandments. "-A. H. Lewis, D.D., Seventh-Day Baptist.

Foreigners Must Adopt Our Customs, Not We Theirs."If the Sabbath is to be made simply a day of amusement and recreation, certainly all the places of amusement and recreation should be open on that day as well as the saloon.

"If this right is granted to the liquor traffic it will be the entering wedge which will destroy the American Sabbath with all its sacred associations and home blessings. Every argument in favor of maintaining the American Sabbath as a day of rest, as far as the ordinary occupations of life are concerned, are a thousand times stronger when applied to the liquor traffic.

"We are told by the liquor dealer that this demand for the open saloon on Sunday comes from a portion of our foreign-born population who have come to us from countries where this is the custom, and that they should not be deprived of this right here in a free country. We welcome all honest immigrants who come to us for the purpose of securing the benefits which our form of government give. We are willing to receive from them any improvement upon our system of government or social life which they may suggest, providing they tend to the elevation and improvement of our people; but unless their habits and customs are better than ours, we submit that they should adopt our customs rather than to attempt to force the customs and habits of Europe upon us.

...

As we love our institutions, then, we must stand against the open saloon on Sunday. Every church organization in this land, Catholic and Protestant alike, stand unalterably opposed to the Sunday saloon, and a vast majority of all our people without regard to religion or sect also believe in the necessity of making Sunday a day of rest, and are equally with the church people opposed to the open saloon on Sunday."- Warner Miller.

The Demand for "Home Rule" Comes from Semi-Crimiminals." Decent citizens of this metropolis ought to thank God that the commonwealth is larger than the city, and that the laws are enacted by the majority of representatives from all parts of