Evening Star Newspaper, July 14, 1929, Page 29

EDITORIAL SECTION he Sunday Star. WASHINGTON, D. C., SUNDAY MORNING, JULY 14, 1929, Part 2—8 Pages WORLD ANGRY AT TARIFF; DISLIKES U. S. PROSPERITY Little Can Be Done About It, for Europe TEN SUGGESTIONS MADE FOR CURBING CRIME IN U. S. {Wade H. Ellis’ Plan Deals With General Freedom of the Seas Will Not Figh t Us and Still Needs Our Money. BY FRANK H. SIMONDS. T would be idle to attempt to dis- guise the fact that alike in the British Empire and in Europe re- cent weeks have seen a markeéd recrudescence of resentment over American facts. The call of the London ‘Times for a tariff war with us, the un- qualified siatements made in the French Chamber, the rumblings in Canada, all indicate the world is once more be- coming irritated at the consequences for it of American prosperity and po- litical policy. Just at the moment we have pretty thoroughly upset the whole European financial situation by the double proc- ess of largely expanding our favorable trade -balance and reducing our foreign investments in equally large amounts. Add to this a marked expansion of Furopean investments in American se- curities and it becomes clear that our exchanges with Europe have come to take on something of the appearance of a one-way street, All of this, too, is preparatory to a marked increase in our tariff rates, ‘which means that new and abnormal influences are presently to be added to what has so far been a natural process. Ten years after the making of peace, then, we are once more be- ginning to get upon the nerves of the world. Our revenues yleld us mag- nificent surpluses, our national debt diminishes by leaps and bounds, every- thing seems to combine to make the United States increasingly fortunate, while the rest of the world struggles along still carrying its wartime burdens. What Can Europe Do? Now comes the crucial question: ‘What can Europe, what can the British Empire, do about it? Certain things are possible, at least in theory. Thus the Chamberlain principle of preferen- tial tariff within the empire can be revived. Canada and Britain, for ex- ample, can agree upon a common tariff which on the one hand would result in a practical embargo of American imports and on the other in the ex- change of Canadian raw materials and foodstuffs for British manufactures. Our farmers would thus lose the British ,d“x:rk“’ our manufacturers the Cana- n. But the immediate difficulty would be discoverable in the fact that any such step would require Britain defi- nitely to surrender the long-established . doctrine of fres trade, to which Labor #till subscribes with absolute loyalty, with Liberalism following suit. Britain ‘would, in effect, have to agree to pay rather more for its foodstuffs, grain {rom Canada and meat from, Australia; C.nada and Australia would have to accept only British automobiles and similar things in which American tech- nical superiority is manifest. ‘That there will be any real prog- ress in this direction while the pres- ent, Labor Government is in power is highly improbable. Labor more likely, with Liberal support, to under take, on the one hand, to arrange the American naval dispute and, on the other, to renew the associations with the League of Nations which under the Tory regime have been suffered to become very loose. Yet it is mani- fest, that growing British irritation at American financial and economic policies could, in the end, militate against any satisfactory adjustment of the naval issue. Nor is there present reason to ex- pect any creation of a common front on the Continent against us. The thing is far from impossible, but it requires & great deal of time to bring about and both the diminution of po- litical rivalries within Europe and the general appreciation of the fact that no country can, by pursuing a frank- 1y pré-American policy, hope for Ameri- can favors, make it improbable. Nevertheless, one must perceive that certain reprisals are almost inevitable. In Britain, for example, the pound sterling has been brought down to the lowest level since it was finally re- stored to par. Loss of gold, which mainly finds its way to New York, has gravely disturbed Lombard street. United States is Parochial. Of course, at bottom, the whole situation zesults from the fact that while, financially and economically, | the United States has become inter- national, the greatest single power in | the world, politically we have remained parochial in the narrowest sense of the word. Congress, which controls our policies, is both ignorant of and un- concerned with the world repercussions of its own decision. The fact that ving the farmers certain special avors in the matter of tariff duties wmight upset the equilibrium of world trade and finance seems in Washing- ton of utmost unimportance. Moreover, so far we have been able 1o “get away” with a combination of al- most unparalleled world power and very nearly absolute unconcern for the ef. fect upon the world of our own ac- tions. t is becoming daily a more interesting question is whether we can keep the thing up indefinitely. Ob- y Europe cannot make war u&m us and does not dream of such a thing. Quite as patently, it has no financial remedy, because we have the money. ‘The single ible means of atl upon us—of counter-attack, the Euro- pean would say—must lie through the combined effort to keep out our exports, And this is a fact which all Europe has reeived with growing clarity and discussed with increasing earnestness for several years. Nevertheless, nothing could be done until the debris of the war had been mopped up. Without our financial re- sources the reorganization of Europs was practically impossible. While it was going forward Europe had to sub- +mit to American policies. But - with the formulation of the Dawes plan, with the drawing of the Young plan, with the rehabilitation of the economic lives of ths various European powers, the period in which America was necessary and therefore to be endured upon its own terms draws to a close. The moment is at hand when Europe can afford to fight over have long countries. On hand, and '3;0 ther or separately, bw!.'oildufl mualendu decrte. All Europea framdd with the idea special favors, ours has the notion of treal ecual severity. freer trade, used its financial power to build up its foreign exports, but we have lent our money without regard to any ulterior consideration. Duripg the last 10 years our finance and our business have acquired a pretty broad and adequate grasp of the tech- nique of world power in their respective branches. But while the masters of money and trade have earned and enjoy enormous authority abroad, they are treated with something approaching georn in their own legislatures. Owen Young in a Paris conference rivals the Eiffel Tower. Owen Young in Washing- ton, advising & Senate committee upon the effects of proposed tariff legislation, would not have the influence accorded to a leader of a rural county beyond the Mississippi. May Be Self-Sufficient. America is, economically as well &5 po- litically speaking, self-sufficlent: that our home market is large enough, our home opportunities great enough to ab- sorb all our Producuon and occupy all our capital. In that case, we shall pres- ently cease to lend money abroad and gradually restrict our exports. In such case our legislators need have no con- cern for the effect of their decisions upon the world at large, because the world will have no means of reprisal. But today this is far from the situa- tion. Moreover, since the World War we have increasingly and with growing success entered the foreign markets. But all our success has been without any political co-operation. Our business and finance have succeeded not with, but in spite of, our politicians. And now we have come squarely up against a sit- uation in which it is at least possible that this lack of co-operation may lead to reverse, if not disaster. In any event, the new tariff laws are going to supply one of the most inter- esting experiments in history. They Irnre based upon the conception that it | is possible at one time to keep foreign goods out of our markets and retain and even increase our sales in foreign-mar- kets. They assume that Europe has to buy of us and we have no need to buy of Europe. They assume that what we have lent and may lend to Europe can be paid back in some fashion other than by goods directly. In a word, they give the lie to all past theories and issue a direct challenge to all nations; and all nations are increasingly considering the possibility of taking up the challenge. (Copyright, 1929.) . Army Officers Taught To Manage Messes Under tall, willowy palm trees swept by the trade winds of the Pacific and in buildings along the bank of the Panama Canal, Unclé Sam'’s bright young Army officers are being taught the funda- mentals of mess management and the preparation of meats and other foods. Their instructors are hard-boiled, griz- 2led old mess serge who have pre- | pared beans and ‘“canned willle” for France. The object is to make officers familiar with the duties of mess ser- geants and cooks, so that they can de- command are being properly fed. A good “mess” makes a good soldier, and the men will do the maximum of work if good food is forthcoming after a day’s hike over uncharted jungles or muddy, treacherous swamps. For four weeks the young officers just out of West Point are trais in the classroom and the kitchen. Under the instruction of staff officers they learn the elements of cooking, nutrition and preparation of balanced menus for hikes and regular camp duty. In actual perparation of meals (and kneading dough and peeling potatoes) they work under the watchful eye of a veteran mess sergeant. Clean- ing dishes and other k. p. work must be gone through with, and though not entirely pleasant it i3 borne in soldierly fashion, Goldsmith’s Claim As Doctor Puzzling Trinity College, which educated Oliver Goldsmith, has this year been celebrating his bicentenary. The college is puzzled by Goldsmith's claim to a medical degree. In his first book he de- seribed himself as a bachelor of medi- cine, but the college records contain no irace of such a degree having been con- ferred, his only degree being that of bachelor of arts. He is known to have supplemented his income from writing by practicing medicine, and it was supposed that he must have obtained a medical - tion at some of the continental univer- asities which he visited in his travels. ‘The records of several universities have been searched and fail to_show any qualification for Goldsmith. It was once that he should be given an a) tment as medical officer in the India Co. at Coromandel, but the appointment was ultimately can- mlet:n eo;n the ground that he was not The legend that as a by Goldsmith the Trinity College, Dublin, r:srdl. At the age of 15 he was admitted to the { college as a sizar or r scholar, and the examination for t privilege was, and is, so stiff, especially in Latin and Greek, that Goldsmith’s intelligence at 15 must have been well above the aver- age. A Villages 45 Japanese Prohibit Use of Liquor While it will be some time before is | dinary bition for thronement is Ka west coast, which went dry in February, mmwmmmz- new i It may be, as many maintain, that the last 20 years in the Philippines, | China and the mud-soaked flelds of | termine whether the men under their | i i 1 | was dull and stupid ean be refuted from | many Question So Much to Fore in Deliberations of Nations Never Fully Agreed Upon. Cornelius Van Blynkershock. MEN WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO PUZZLING QUESTION AS TO WHAT 1S “THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS” HE real situation 10 years after the war is this: The highway of nations, the com- mon _inheritance of all peo- ple, knows no law save the law of force.” Such is the statement of Senator Willlam E. Borah of Idaho, comment- ing upon that century-old topic, “The Freedom of the Seas” in a recent magazine article, which incorporated substantially the position taken by him on_the floor_of the Senate. Does the real situation justify so sweeping a statement? Is the sea, in the language of international lawyers, “res communis or res nullius"? §¢ belong to nobody? Certainly no nation or group of na- tions claims exclusive jurisdiction over any great extent of open ocean. Nor is there any specific code, generally agreed upon by the world powers, gov- erning the sea. Nevertheless, it is obvious that vital interests of all sea-going peoples at any time may be profoundly affected by events at sea. They hardly can be expected to stand by supinely and let events take their course, merely omr the theoretical grounds that the ocean is beyond -their jurisdiction. Recognized Basic Principles. The policles and attitudes of the United States-and most other civilized nations during the past century have been puzzling, at times apparently in- consistent, and obviously molded ac- cording to circumstances. The World War threw a spotlight on several of them. But there have been certain generally recognized basic principles War on Senate Secrecy Old Question Dates Back to Earliest Days of Republic—Many Previous Clashes in History. BY WILLIAM C. MURPHY, JR. FTER nearly 150 years of theo- retical secrecy as to such mat- ters, the United States Senate has decided to take the public into its confidence as to its deliberations on treaties and on nom- inations for Federal offices. This ac- tion, taken just before the Summer re- cess of Congress, put a stop for the time being to the uproar produced by newspaper publication of two supposed- 1y secret roll calls during the preceding few months. It is possible that the armistice may be only temporary, for the Senate did not go to the extreme of abolishing secret sessions altogether, Nor did it agree that all roll calls taken in secret sessions should be published, as many Senators have demanded. But, whereas until the recent change in the Senate rules the consideration of a treaty or a nomination in secret session was the .normal course and could be changed only by a two-thirds vote taken in secret, the situation now is that all treaties and nominations are to be con- sidered in open session, except in cases where by a majority vote the Senate shall decide that a particular treaty or nuxznn,mon shall be considered in se- cret. Even where this latter course is pur- sued it will now b& possible to make E:bllc the vote on any question decided secret session whenever a majority of the Senate so desires. Formerly a two-thirde vote was required. May Reveal Votes. Still another cha: in the rules is ly authorizes any Senator at any time to reveal how he himself voted on any question in secret session. This will put an end to the ridiculous situation which has arisen times in senatorial campaigns when a Scnator, accused by his op- ponents of having voted for or against a certain nomination or treaty, was forbidden to deny or affirm the charge without rendering himself liable to ex- pulsion from the Senate. There has never been an expulsion for this reason, but the rule was there, nevertheless. The immediate cause of the recent :h:enr;em{n Lhecu !fieé\lte‘ruln was -the en ing a y of & newspaper man. His activities included oMAI.nE( the roll call by which the Se: ing the last session of Secretary of and also as the the i}:lch during the extra Patent Appeals. In both instances there were extraor- precautions taken by the Senate to prevent publication of details of these actions. And in both instan the roll calls were duly compiled and published. Is it | the common property of all or does it | American Contentions Cited. Chief Justice Marshall. that have not passed out of sight en- tirely, either in peace or wa ‘The fundamental rule was laid down in 1685 by Cornelius van Blynkershock, | judge of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Holland. He sald “Imperium terrae finiri ubi finitur armorum potestas” (the control of the land ends where ends the range of its arms). Modified by numerous interpretations, refinements and adaptations to special conditions, van Blynkershock's opinion remains to this day the basis of civilized practice. Basis of American Policy. A few years later it was interpreted by an Italian jurist to mean the range of a cannon shot from land—a dis- tance set arbitrarily at one sea league or about three miles. The rule was made the basis of American policy by Thomas Jefferson when he was Washington's Secretary of State. In identical notes to the British and French Ministers he wrote: “The greatest distance to which there is any respectable assent among nations has been the extent of human sight, estimated at upwards of 20 miles, and the smallest claimed by any nation whatsoever is the range of a cannon ball, usually stated at one sealeague.” He indicated his own intention to abide by the lower limit. The United States never has wan- dered far from this principle, so far as any claim to control over the seas is concerned. In treaties entered into with Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Cuba and Panama between 1924 and 1926 the contracting nations express “their firm intent to uphold the principle of three marine miles, extending from the coastline outwards and measured from the low-water mark, constituting the proper limits of for investigations to determine how the roll calls leaked out. After the Lenroot case the Senate rules committee actu- ally went through the motions of start- ing an_ investigation by calling Mr. Mallon before it and asking him where he got his information. He promptly refused to tell and the matter was dropped. No one at all familiar with the situa- tion had any idea that any attempt would be made to hive a real investi- gation, for the very good reason that such an inquiry—if successful—might be very embarrassing for members of the Senate. It would not be in accord with traditional senatorial courtesy to expel a brother Senator for revealing information which he had taken an oath to keep secret. There are just two sources from which such informa- tion can come: A Senator or one of the very few Senate employes who are present in secret sessions. It is axio- matic among newspaper men at the Capitol that no Senate employe ever reveals anything about the secret ses- sions and no newspaper man ever wastes his time trying to elicit infor- mation from one of them. Oppose Secret Sessions. In recent years there has been & secret sessions. This group When Is a very strong group in the Senate op- posed to Thomas Jefferson. territorial waters.” The United States also claims exclusive jurisdiction over certain land-locked extensions of the sea, such as Chesapeake Bay. So to this extent, at least, the seas are not lawless. Within three miles of its coast the United States considers the ocean as part of its territory and subject to its Federal laws. Persons born on merchant ships within this limit theoretically are born in the United States, regardless of the nation. ality of the ship. Marriages and con- tracts within this limit are entered into | under the laws of the United States. Most. other countries take the same position. It seldom seriously has been | challenged. Courts Given Jurisdiction. Congress in 1794 gave Federal dis- trict courts jurisdiction over com- plaints by whomsoever instigated in cases of captures made within the waters of the United States or within a marine league of the coasts thereof.” With certain insignificant exceptions —the Scandinavian countries maintain four-mile limit—this is as far as any nation claims absolute control. Else- where the seas are “the common in- heritance of all people” so long as the use made of them is not obnoxious or dangerous to some nation powerful enough to astert its authority. Once outside the three-mile limit we are in the maze of apparently incon- sistent precedents. A Portuguese man-of-war in 1799 captured the American ship Aurora | about five leagues off the coast of Brazil for alleged illicit trading with a uguese colony. ~ Both ship and cargo were confiscated. A clause in the Aurora's insurance policy stipulated has been numerous enough to make it obvious that no Senator could be ex- pelled for revealing secret business—a procedure which would require a two- thirds vote. Hence, the reluctance of the majority leaders to start any real investigation of the numerous leaks which have plagued them. They real- ized that even if they found out how the secrets were belng revealed It probably would be impossible for them to_do anything apout it. It is not & slur’on the Senate to inti- mate that Senate secrets are revealed by Senators themselves. There have been investigations in years past when executive proceedings ~ were revealed, and in every case in which the source of the information was ascertained it was found to have been a member of the Senate, Back in 1844 one Senator came very close to expulsion for making & _treaty public, but he was finally let off with a reprimand. Another Solemn Faree. A particularly solemn farce was en- acted during the famous sugar investi- gation of a few decades ago. A news- paper man was arrested on order of the Senate and called before a commitiee for questioning as to where he obtained certain supposedly secret information. ‘When he refused to answer he was kept under arrest for several days. The ar- Man Aged? BY BRUCE BARTON. DREAD to come to the end of a year,” friend to me recentl: makes me ze | am grewing old.” w long before that. Sir Walter * Scott at 55 be- moaned the fact that he was an old Montaigne retired to at 38 to spend his declining years in peace and study. Dr. Samuel Johnson once re- marked that at 35 a man had reached his p nd_ a that his course must be downw; B * %k kK Physiologists tell us that in all mammals except man the peripd of life is five timi i growth, d growth in 2 years and lives 10, a horse in B years and lives 25. On this basis a man should live from 100 to 150 years. 7 «But William James, the great psychologist, said that most men are “old fogies at 25.” 4 “principles” and closed all new ideas, They d to grow. ute a man grow—no matter what h that minute he begins to * K On the other hand, the really great man never grows old. s to re— b4 be old. * * ok Bismarck, wha died at 83, did work after he was 70. an, the celebrated painter, lived to be 99, painting right up to the end. Gosethe passed out at 83 and finished his “Faust” only a few Gladstone took up e when he was 70. t increased | the mileage of h from 120 te more than 10,000 between his seventieth birthday and his death erying: “What we know ing; what we do not know is im- se.” 1 suppose that is the real an- swer to the question, When is a man old? place at 78 :h‘ young. He 9! ing, still sure that he had a lot to learn. ¥ 8 As long as a man can- keep himself in that attitude of mind he is still young, ‘ (Copsritht, 1820.) Farl Gray. | that it would be voided by illicit trading | with Brazil. The insurance company | refused payment. The ship's owners maintained that the fact of having approached within four of five leagues of the Brazilian coast did not consti- tute “trading,” whatever the ultimate intention may have been. U. S. Supreme Court Ruling. The case went to the United States | Supreme Court and the insurance com- pany was upheld in an opinion ren- | dered Chief Justice Marshall, as | follow: he right of a belligerent to | search a neutral vessel on the high seas for contraband of war is univer- sally admitted because the belligerent | has the right to prevent injury being done to itself by assistance intended for the enemy. So. too, a nation has the right to prohibit any commerce with its colonies. Any attempt to vio- the Jaws made to protect this right | is an injury to itself, and it has the right to use means necessary for pre- vention. These means do not appear to be limited in any certain, marked bound- aries. If they are such as unneces- sarily to vex and harass foreign com- merce foreign nations will resist their | exercise. If they are such as are reason- able and necessary they will be sub- | mitted to.” ‘Three years later, under almost iden- *ical circumstances, the French seized the American ship Sarah off Santo Domingo. This case also went to the Supreme Court, and Marshall, who evi- dently had changed his mind in the meantime, rendered an almost exactly contrary opinion, holding that the right of a nation to capture a smuggler must (Continued on Fifth Page.) rest was not particularly burdensome, to be sure; in practice it meant that he was placed in the custody of a deputy sergeant-at-arms, who accompanied the correspondent everywhere the latter went—even into the press gallery to report the doings of the Senate. For a week or more they dined together, roomed together, all at the expense of the Government. The delicious part of the perform- ance was that the Senator who was chairman of the investigating commit- tee and as such had been demanding savagely that the correspondent reveal the source of his information was the very man who had given the informa- tion to the correspondent in the first place. Many Senators ~ and not a few newspaper men knew all about the transaction at the time, but it was a harmless bit of burlesque and provided free advertising for both the Senator and the correspondent. Knowledge of incidents such as that ks al just related give point to remarks along E Wi ol ea cotianal the line of those made by Senator Dill of Washington (an advocate of open sessions) on the day after the publica- tion of the West roll call. “I wonder,” the Senator said, “if con- cealed in our desks there are sensitive microphones, or possibly there are in the carpets woven wires of dictographs, so0 that all we say here in secret session is carried out to some unknown listening post. Or is it possible that in the ceil- of this sacred chamber there are hidden electrical devices that carry out such information? I do not know, I cannot believe that any Senator would so forget his position as ever to tell any newspaper man how he voted on a great question.” After Senator Dill had complained that the rules of the Senate forbade him to state whether or not his own vote had -been accurately recorded in the published roll call, Senator Norris of Nebraska suggested that the way out of that difficulty would be for Senator Dill to make an announcement during the next secret session. thereby insuring widespread publication of whatever he might say! Issue an Old One. The question of secret sessions of the Senate is as old as the Federal Govern- ment itself. It is provided In the Con- stitution that: “Each House of Congress shall kcep a journal of its proceedings, and, from time to time, publish the same. except- in their judg- ment, require secrec! whel:qme first Congress met in 1789, in’ March, a quorum of the House o Representatives was not obtained until April 1. The House met in secret ses- sion until April 8, and then d its doors to the public. They ve re- mained open ever since except for a Enforcement, but He Offers Novel Dry Proposal. BY MARK SULLIVAN. RESIDENT HOOVER'S Commis- sion on Law Enforcement 1s at work. What it is doing will probably not appear for several months. Its very silence is re- assuring, provided you know, as those of us who watch events in Washington do know, that it is busily at work. Sooner or later the results of its work and thought will appear in the form of a report. That report, when it appears, will constitute one of the most important events in our domestic contemporary history. The people are more inter- ested in this commission than in any similar body that has functioned with- |in the period of the present writer's experience. The only other body that | was ever attended by as much or more interest. was the Peace Conference at Paris. The report of President Hoover's Commission on Law Enforcement, whe it appears, may be aimost as provoc: tive of public interest in America as was the Versailles Treaty. One of the strongest signs of inter- est in the commission is the number and the quality of the persons who are taking an eager interest in the commis- sion's problem. If the commission should never do anything it would still remain a fact that President Hoover by the mere act of appointing it suc- ceeded in focusing pugllc attention on the problem—the increase of crime in the United States—and caused the pub- lic to see the problem and its cure as one attended by some solemnity. I sus- peci that at this moment a really for- midable number of fine and praise- worthy persons the sort that gets somewhere. Impressive Argument. Among current contributions to thought on this subject the most im- pressive the writer has happened to see comes from Wade H. Ellis. It is now in the form of a printed pamphlet, orig- inally written as a speech delivered under the auspices of the' Washington Society of the Sons of the Revolution. While' Mr. Ellis' utterance is in this form, it is obviously addressed to Mr. Hoover's commission, and it is safe to say the commissien will receive no argument better worked out than Mr. Ellis’. One may differ with him or not, but one is obliged to concede and admire the careful form and thought- ful spirit of his address. In form and spirit of Mr, Ellis’ statement is a prece- dentf for the report of the commission itseif. Mr. Ellis’ contribution is impressive for several reasons. It is important be- cause of its authorship. Mr. Ellis, now practicing law at Washington, was for- merly assistant to the Attorney General cf the United States, and before that was Attorney General of ‘the State of Ohio. and before that Assistant Cor- poration Counsel of the city of Cincin- nati. Mr. Ellis, in short, knows the job of enforcing law—knows it by ex- perience in the law enforcing depart- ments of a city. a State and the Nation. Mr. Ellis' address further commends itself because he grasps the job of Mr. Hoover's commission as the commission grasps it, as Mr. Hoover grasped it— in short, as it is. Mr. Ellis sees the commission’s task as one embracing all enforcement and all crime. He escapes the tendency, too common in many circles, to look upon the commission’s work as having to do with prohibition only. and to expect the commission’s re- port to be solely an answer to the ques- tion: “What shall we do about, prohibi- tion?” All the early part of Mr. Ellis’ address deals with the problem of law enforcement as a universal thing. And there is nowhere a more thoughful summary of recommendations than the one Mr. Ellis has made, with obvious care. Makes 10 Recommendations. As respects law enforcement in gen- eral, Mr. Ellis makes 10 recommenda- tions. To state them here very briefly and, therefore, with the handicap of omitting Mr. Ellis’ convincing argu- ment for each point, his recommenda- tions are: 1. Stronger police departments in the communities where they are most needed, and more and better paid judges, prosecuting attorneys, and all authorities that have to do with the detection and punishment of crime. 2. Stop at once the manufacture and sale of firearms, especially the pistol, except under State or Government sup- ervision. 3. Promptly deport all aliens con- ! victed of major crimes. 4. Some central bugeau or authority can act as a sort of clearing house in assembling the records of habitual business should be considered in apen session beginning with the convening of the next session of Congress. At the same time provision was made for the construction of a gallery. But it was provided that the practice of secret ses- sions should be retained as far as the transaction of executive business was concerned—that is, during the consider- ation of treaties or of nominations for Pederal offices. First Serious Violation. ‘The famous Jay treaty with Great Britain, ratified in 1795, was the occa- sion of the first serious violation of the ule of secrecy with respect to executive business. Meeting in special session to consider this treaty on June 8 of that year, the Senate debated it until June 24 and then voted in favor of ratifica- tion. The vote was 20 to 10—exactly the required two-thirds majority. Even after ratification, however, the treaty was not made public and the Senate adjourned. Within a week after the Senate had adjourned the Philadelphia Aurora published what purported to be a sum- mary of the provisions of the treaty. This summary came to the attention of Senator Stevens T. Mason, an anti-Fed- eralist from Virginia, who had opposed ratification. Senator Mason found that the Aurora summary contained a few inaccuracies and decided that it was time for the people to be informed as to just what the treaty was. He sent his copy of the document to the editor of the Aurora with a letter saying that the latter could uss it. ‘The Senator’s letter was published in the Aurora and the treaty itself was pub!::tdnd in p:“mpget form. It was red prin promptly many papers an aroused a widespread storm of criticism mtt!:“op e'.lnn. Bo{uv-vtmum hesitated for seven weeks after the Sen. in | ate had agreed to ratification . This was over the election Senator from Pennsylvania. was _subsequently excluded the Senate on the d that he had not been a citizen of the United States for the required nine years. same month a resolution that legislative finally signed the treaty. So far as the records , no suggestion was ever made of any punitive action against Senator Mason. Senator Makes Apology. Another violation of the secrecy rule was the hich occurred in 1844, when Senator Benjamin Tappan of Ohio gave a copy of the treaty provid- 1 tion of Texas ing for the annexa of correspondent, of the New York (Continued on Page.), | are giving earnest| thought to this question. thought of ard in England. | eriminals and all information that may be made quickly. available to local au- | thorities. Such a bureau might well be established in every State capital, with one national agency for the whole country, located either in Washington or in some more central city. 5. Simplify or abolish the indictment. It is the basis for every legal skirmish | —often, when badly drawn, permitting a guilty man to go free. 6. Abolish the necessity for trial by jury in practically all criminal cases by permitting the waiver of a jury trial within reasonable limitations and under appropriate safeguards. 7. Increase everywhere the so-called “arbitral” courts for the arbitration of purely civil controversies between indi- viduals, so as to take some of the burden of work off the ordinary courts and judges. 8. Make it a paramount duiy of law- vers themselves to expose and disbar every unworthy member of their pro- fession who so advises or protects pro- fessional criminals as to make himself a partner in their crimes. 9. The newspapers “can make crime not interesting and heroic, but hideous and cowardly, by emphasizing the cause of the wronged.” . . . 10. The people themselves, in every State and_every community, must get into this fight for orderly government. Our whole trouble has been produced by the complacency and supineness of millions of good men and women all over the land. Offers Striking Suggestion. Here are ten recommendations, and | not one of them mentions prohibition. Obviously Mr. Ellis sees prohibition not as the sole subject to be treated by ;Mr. Hoover's commission, but merely as part of the whole subject. By no means does Mr. Ellis ignore prohibition. On the contrary, he makes, as respects prohibition, a striking and novel suggestion. It is mainly because of the newness and the impressiveness of Mr. Ellis' suggestion about prohibi« tion—and the certainty that it will pro~ voke widespread discussion—that led the present writer to take Mr. Ellis’ address as the subject of this article. Apparently Mr. Ellis believes in proe hibition, or at least wishes for the ex tinction not only of the trafic in ine toxicating liquors, but of their use he says: “Undoubtedly it would be a good thing for the country morally, physio- logically and financially, if the use of | intoxicating liquors was stopped by | everybody by common consent.” Mr. Ellis' concrete suggestion about prohibition enforcement has to ¢o with | the fact that some States do not ene | force it. The facts on this point are that three States never passec State enforcement acts and three other States which once passed State enforcemert acts have now repealed them. One | hears in Washington that this tendency of the States to recede from the work | of enforcement is increasing and that | some other States are about to join the | list of those repealing their enforce- ment acts. Where States never passed enforcement acts or, as in the cases of | New York and Wisconsin, passed them | but then repealed them, it follows that | the Federal Government at Washington has within those States the whols bur- ! den of enforcing. | Under this condition the tendency | up to _the present has been to say that |the Federal Government should | right on enforcing within such States; iindeem the tendency has been to say that where a State stops enforcing the | Pederal Government should increase its | activity and vigllance within that State. Fair Showdown Urged. { Mr. Ellis suggests precisely the op- | posite course. He says: “It is important to inspire a greater sense of personal and local responsi- bility. . . . The power and obligation to enforce prohibition is precisely as incumbent upon each and every one of the 48 States of this Union as it is Iupon Congress. There is absolutely no difference either in the power or {the duty. . . . Now I suggest that the American people put this concurrent obligation into effect. Let us have a fair and square showdown on the sub- ject. Let us insist and require that | every State which is doing its part by | legislation and enforcement to secure obedience to the prohibition amend- | ment, shall have the help and co-op= lerlglon of the Federal Government | Now Mr. Ellis comes to the meat of his suggestion: “Every State which refuses to do its part to enforce the prohibition amend- ment shall not have the support of the Federal Governmment.” This means that, as respects Wise consin, for example, the Federal Gov- | ernment should withdraw from ordi- nary local prohibition _enforcement within that State. The Federal Gov- ernment would, of course, continue to prevent smuggling into Wisconsin from Canada. ‘The Federal Government would pointedly and with particular care help to prevent smuggling of liquo= from other States into Wisconsin. Federal Government would also within | Wisconsin suppress wholesale manu- facture of a sort likely to be transpo:ted into dry States, but the Federal Gove {ernment would withdraw from hunt- |ing down or punishing or preventing small local violations within Wisconsin of the sort that a State is commeonly expected to handle through its own police power. Mr. Ellis says: “What would be the effect of this? ... In my judgment, such & bold stroke would have an im- mediate and electrical effect all over the ! country. The people of every State in Ithe Union would realize for the first !time that the enforcement of prohibi- !tion is primarily their business. It | would set them to thinking as no other | experiment would.” Situation Visualized. It is a fair guess that the “bold | stroke” which Mr. Ellis suggests would have, as he puts it, “an immediate and | electrical effect” on certainly a portion |ot the country. That portion would be the drys in the non-enforcing | As to this group, what is their state jof mind under the present condition? ! We can visualize it thus: The State of Wisconsin proposes to stop enforc- ing. What do the drys in Wisconsin do? What is their natural reaction? Do they say to themselves, “Oh, well, inever matter, Uncle Sam will enforce ifor us.” er ifor us.” i But su the drys in Wisconsin jknew precisely the contrary, knew that 1'.hn Federal Government would swp en- forcing in that State? Would not that Euvleflle ul.'l:e '-a:m ar,':, in ?bennnn make Eatee ward keeping their State locally dry? posal resull a uant ‘l;:t.mty and hournu't:;tmo: the :t of who believe in prohibition? ’xg)eeflm‘mnt writer not only believes ithat Mr. 3 experiment i