For this reason we deprecate that portion of the President's note which places the contention of the United States on the broad ground of humanity. Not but that this is a proper ground, in itself considered, but the case, as a question of international law, is quite strong enough, and the suggestion of an offense against humanity cannot but be irritating to German sentiment, while it adds to the flames of American hostility to German war methods. We fear that before the question is entirely settled, that phase of the contention of the United States may cause quite unnecessary difficulty.

It is true that in no part of the "note" was the President more fully supported by public opinion in the United States, but it is not so clear that this sentiment does perfect justice to Germany, or that our information is entirely unbiased. Least of all have we ground for supposing that there was intentional inhumanity in the sinking of the Lusitania. It may very well be that the German Admiralty, and the officers of the attacking submarines believe that the passengers would be saved, from so great a ship, when they have, in most cases, been saved from much smaller ones that have been attacked in the same manner. I do not seek to defend the sinking of the Lusitania. I do think that we have a sufficient case on recognized principles of international law, without adding an irritating accusation.

As to the general subject of the alleged inhumanity of German soldiers, we must bear in mind that German governmental methods, as applied to their own people, might seem to us inhumane, and to them eminently humane. It is the German way for the Government to compel, by the most ruthless severity, the doing of those things which the Government thinks the people ought to do for their own good. That is, in their eyes, humanity. In other words, the intention of such conduct is humane. This attitude, so difficult for us to understand,

has well nigh obliterated poverty from the German empire. The same method, applied even more ruthlessly, and with military brusqueness, is, without doubt, responsible for most of the stories of German brutality. The cases of actual barbarism may well and safely be regarded as individual acts, and exceptional.

I state these things in this connection, because I believe that it is quite possible that the Lusitania incident may be closed, without conflict and without prejudice to American neutrality, if our people do not become imbued with too partisan an attitude.

But little comment is necessary as to Mr. Bryan's resignation. It is superfluous to doubt his sincerity. It seems to be one of the those cases where an action falls short of the heroic by just that narrow margin which makes it ridiculous. On the other hand, it is not impossible that the progress of events will confer upon it that very heroism which it seems to have missed by its insufficient reason. Mr. Bryan's talk seems likely to add to the unenviable weakness of his position.

The press of the country has been very steady under the excitement. There has been some overshooting of the mark, and but little of that calmness and high seriousness which might be desired in so grave a matter. Mr. Bryan has been spoken of more insultingly than the case calls for. His action has not strengthened any disposition of Germany to resist us. It has had no effect whatever. The Germans do not understand it. Mr. Bryan has been lending a willing ear to the ultrapeace men of the country. They have had him on the 'phone continually. He has been their man in the administration. He has been too much under their influence. His action appears now quixotic, but that seems to be the worst that can be justly said about it. With the intemperate and insulting tone of many papers, I have no sympathy. I do not believe that they are any more patriotic than those who

are less anxious to make a parade of their patriotism. It is even not impossible that Mr. Bryan's act, foolish and quixotic as it seems to be, has set the nation to thinking, put the administration more on its mettle to avoid war, and accomplished thus indirectly some good, by which its sincerity will have in some measure atoned for its folly.

Let us not forsake our neutral attitude. Let us not be unjust to a great people who are making heroic sacrifices, and fighting with the utmost devotion for what they seem to believe is right. Neutrality is not only righteous, it is to our interest. For who shall say but that we may have to fight much harder, and with sterner weapons than diplomacy, for that freedom of the seas which the warzone seems to threaten, if it so be that

one side or the other shall gain a pronounced victory in this war. The best interests of the United States call for a balance of power in Europe. Under the long maintenance of a balance of power we have flourished and been at peace with the world. It is not so clear that we will flourish so freely, or remain at peace so generally, if that balance of power is broken.

Needless to say the situation rises far above all issues of partisan politics. The President should have our earnest sympathy and the guidance of our truest thought, our "support," as it is called. But in supporting him, may we not emphasize, that while loyal in any eventuality, our preference is for peace and for the strict maintenance of that neutrality which he has thus far consistently upheld.

T

HOSE who would do business

with Uncle Sam must expect rather shabby treatment; least of all must they take offence when they find themselves under surveillance as suspicious characters. Our amiable government that squanders its billions with easy prodigality, practices more petty, cheese-paring methods than any other great financial institution in the world. By unbroken tradition, its daily routine is organized on the happy assumption that everyone is a thief. Government settles a ten dollar account by ponderous machineries, whereby the public is supposed to be automatically protected from fraud, and whereby to a certainty the cost of the transaction is doubled and trebled. But he who desires a Million Dollars from the same source, is at once welcomed behind the counter, where the till is always open.

Our people, accustomed in their private affairs to broader and sounder

ways of doing business, have come to

look upon this governmental ponder

osity and extravagance, with increasing irritation. During President Taft's administration a thoughtful beginning had been made of a complete revolution of the method of making up Government estimates and appropriations. appropriations. A Senate Committee, of which Senator Jonathan Bourne, Jr., was chairman, and Senators Aldrich, Carter, Root and Hughes were members, drafted a bill creating a governmental business methods commission. In an able article in the "Outlook" of October 9th, 1909, Senator Bourne began a campaign of education that the country might understand the necessity and nature of such a change as was desired. This article is still very live matter, and should have a wide reading. At the beginning of the present administration, therefore, the time was ripe for reform. The country was led to believe that such reforms

would be instantly inaugurated. No shortcoming of the administration is more disappointing to its friends than the failure to keep this pledge, a failure that it is very difficult not to lay at the door of the President and his Cabinet. They had the power. Their pledge was explicit. The time was ripe. How many toiling farmers and anxious men of business, how many struggling heads of families, read with eager hope and deep approval the strong pronouncement of the Democratic platform on this subject. "WE DENOUNCE THE PROFLIGATE WASTE OF THE MONEY WRUNG FROM THE PEOPLE BY OPPRESSIVE TAXATION THROUGH THE LAVISH APPROPRIATIONS OF RECENT REPUBLICAN CONGRESSES, WHICH HAVE KEPT TAXES HIGH, AND REDUCED THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE PEOPLE'S TOIL. WE DEMAND A RETURN TO THAT SIMPLICITY AND ECONOMY WHICH BEFITS A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, AND A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF USELESS OFFICERS, THE SAL

ARIES OF WHICH DRAIN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PEOPLE."

The administration's legislative program called upon the business of the country to make many privations in the interest of a Democratic fiscal regime and "reform" laws. These privations rendered only the more insistent the demand for governmental economy. Then came the European war. Private citizens realized that searching scrutiny of their expense accounts and radical retrenchments were necessary to avert financial disaster. Government revenues were disappointing and the administration was forced to impose new taxes. In such a situation, extravagance, indifferent and wilful, on the part of the Government, seemed unthinkable. The expectation of radical reform was universal, and that expectation was one of the sources of the strength of

the administration with its friends and with the people.

Congress dragged out an interminable session. The hour of adjournment drew near. The country, although many had begun to observe with nervous suspicion the steady decline of the Treasury reserve, was wholly unprepared for the revelations of the long-delayed appropriation bills. But the true state of affairs no longer could be withheld. The Secretary of the Treasury submitted, for the Departments estimates of unprecedented magnitude. The figures rolled up into such appalling totals that it soon became evident that a new record for wild extravagance was being registered. There was a quick scurrying to cover, an effort to mitigate the truth, to conceal it, to do a little paring here and there-to forget. Absolutely essential items were omitted from important department estimates. The lame expedient of continuation bills was adopted to bridge the gap until the next session of Congress. The Treasury reserve was found to be below the danger mark. An inevitable deficiency loomed large and threatening in the immediate future. Like a prodigal, his portion spent, Congress melted silently away. The session was ended! The greatest financial debauch ever indulged in by our national government was over-all but the aftermath.

The appropriation bills were left in such an uncertain condition and handled in such an unbusinesslike manner that it is difficult to estimate the full total of this monumental wastefulness. Congressman Fitzgerald is authority for the figures which we shall quote. So far as we have seen, no one has undertaken to contradict them. They seem to be well within the truth. In accordance with these figures, the total appropriations of this first Democratic Congress have been about $2,231,000,000,-not So far from the total cost of the four years of the civil war. There is no use in trying to imagine a Billion Dol

lars. It is so far beyond our arithmetical grasp that the doubling it into two billions and then adding on a mere two hundred and thirty-one millions more, scarcely seem to alter the impression which the figures make. But we can very well see that it is $113,000,000 more than was appropriated by the preceding Congress, and $177,000,000 more than was appropriated by the last Republican Congress, whose WASTE OF THE MONEY WRUNG FROM THE PEOPLE was so bitterly denounced by the Democratic platform. Such is the inglorious end of the promised reform, such the "DEMOCRATIC SIMPLICITY" whose return was demanded by the same interesting doc

ument.

In a time of general distress, and in the face of lowered revenues, in spite of solemn pledges for economy and reform, the stupendous sum of one hundred and thirteen million

dollars was added to the national expense account, by the Congress recently ended. In spite of this huge addition to the burdens of taxation (a burden that under our system is almost instantaneously added to the cost of living), the real needs of the country are not cared for. The head of nearly every Department is disappointed and chagrined. He sees his plans checked, his administration starved. Great undertakings are left to languish. Nothing creative has been done. There is no Panama Canal to show, as is the case with the last Republican Congresses. Worst of all, there has been no provision made for the expenses incurred, and nobody knows where the money is to come from-that is left to the future.

It was not, as were the appropriations of the preceding Republican Congresses, an expenditure of funds actually accruing, of revenues created by the Republican fiscal policy. It did not, as did the Republican appropriation bills so complained of, leave a surplus in the treasury. It has expended the whole of the Republican

surplus, reduced the handsome Republican Treasury balance to a very nervous figure, and creates a heavy deficiency, even on the basis of estimated receipts, which are almost certain to prove disappointing. The estimated revenue for the year 1916 is $1,055,470,000. The amount ap

propriated for the same period (omitting several important items) is $1,115,121,408.68. The revenue estimates are almost certain to prove disappointing. The appropriations, on the other hand, are insufficient and under-estimated.

No feature of all this unhappy story is more annoying to a business man than its uncertainty. There is nothing definite about it. The nation is doing business on a mammoth scale with no knowledge of how it actually stands. No one would be surprised to find the facts much worse than they appear to be. Supplementary appropriations appear to be inevitable. The revenues are in a state of almost unprecedented uncertainty. The increases are in departmental expenses that it will be difficult to eradicate. Extravagances have been inaugurated that are almost certain to perpetuate themselves, unless some such drastic action as Congresses do not love to make, and are not in the habit of making, shall restore them.

In brief, the figures as given compare the expenditures of a Congress which was practically through with Panama Canal expenses, with a Congress that was carrying out that monumental and beneficial work. It omits

figures unobtainable, but certain to

swell the amount. It does not add that this was not an expenditure of

surplus revenues rolled up by prosperity, but a debt incurred, a deficiency created, an expenditure, in a lean year, a year of much distress, of funds that did not exist. Good people of genuine patriotism, are inexpressibly shocked by this uncalled for and untimely prodigality. Soundminded business men are disgusted.

It has not been much talked about, but it has struck in.

Somebody is responsible for this thing. The question of the hour is, who?

Friends of the administration would be quite willing, were it possible to do so, to throw the whole responsibility on Congress. Unhappily, there are difficulties in the way of doing this. In the first place, the amounts asked for by the administration were in excess of those actually appropriated. Congress was more inclined to economy than than the administration. Congress, in fact, saved the country more than seventy-two million dollars, by cutting the administration estimates ($72,763,490.38), according to Congressman Fitzgerald's careful estimate. This is in spite of the fact that the administration failed to ask for many things that were known to be desirable and of public utility. the second place, the President is distinctly called upon by law to advise Congress, "How, in his judgment, the estimated appropriations could with least injury to the public service be reduced so as to bring the appropriations within the estimated revenues," —an enactment which places responsibility quite definitely.

In

Does the administration attempt to deny the expenditure of these vast sums? Has it any explanation to make? If so, we should give careful heed to what is said. I do not learn that any effort has been made to deny the facts. In the face of no denial, they may be regarded as substantially true. Indeed, they are probably understated. Congressman Gillett, in an able speech, places the amount cut by Congress from administration estimates at eighty-four instead of seventy-two millions ($84,404,664.10). In his annual message, the President meets the situation, most characteristically, by a bit of pleasant rhetoric: "I assert with the greatest confidence that the people of the United States are not jealous of the amount their government costs if they are sure that

they get what they need and desire for the outlay." Yes, yes-but what were the needs and desires that justified this untimely extravagance? Information on that point lies outside the province of pretty rhetoric, and we are therefore not informed. We are left to surmise that the "people" "needed and desired" these expenditures. The "people" would like to be told a little more specifically what it is that they needed and desired. They have been imagining that they "needed and desired" careful governmental economy. They had been told by the Democratic platform that that was exactly what they needed and desired, and that they should have it. The Republican administration had been soundly berated for its vast expenditure, in spite of the fact that it was building the Panama Canal, and had something to show for the money spent something of which which every American is justly proud. But the expenditures of this administration have exceeded those of the last Republican administration by more than one hundred millions. We still await specific information as to the "needs. and desires" of "the people" which forced the administration to make a new record of national extravagance in a time of national stringency, to wipe out a surplus left by Republican management, and reduce the Treasury balance below the accepted danger mark.

The actual appropriations made for the fiscal year 1916 amount to the grand total of $1,115,121,408.68, not including $37,400,000 authorized on contracts, and placing the Indian and post office appropriations (on account of the failure to pass the necessary bills) at the figure at which they were carried for the year 1915, although it is quite certain that the post office at least will need more money.

The expenses of the Government during the fiscal year ending March 2, exceeded its revenues (according to Congressman Fitzgerald) by $103,431,443.71, with four months of the