« AnteriorContinuar »
country in the name of the true interests of the land, and not in that of any political party or parties."
place. In fact, the trade circles and foreign business men, who generally steer clear of politics, gave public expression to their confidence in the new régime by a banquet in Asuncion in honor of the newly elected officials." Speaking of the condition of Paraguay in general, the correspondent says:
Another correspondent in the Kölnische Zeitung discusses present conditions in Paraguay. Dr. Benigno Ferreira and G. GonHe has filled the state offices with honest, zales Navero were recently elected respectivecapable men, and in making his appointments he ly President and Vice-President of the rehas entirely disregarded every consideration of public. President Ferreira has been well repolitical faith. This is a noteworthy fact. In ceived by the mass of the people, and "he his work, however, Colonel Montes has been able is believed to be the right man in the right to rely implicitly on his little army, he has carefully remodeled the military department and has only kept tried officers in command. Moreover, the interior peace of the country is now assured for a considerable time at least, and even the most frenzied patriots are willing to admit that it was more prudent to accept the two million pounds sterling from Brazil for the Acre territory than to engage in a protracted savage war which would have bankrupted Bolivia financially and hampered her development for a long time to come. For the first time in the history of the country the great natural wealth of the land is being rationally developed. Bolivia unites the wealth of both Chile and Argentina, but up to the present it has been lacking in cheap direct means of marketing its products. In a short time, however, besides the Chilean railroad, Antofagasta-Oruro-La Paz, and the proposed road, Arica-La Paz, to the Pacific coast, Bolivian goods will be able to reach Argentina ports cheaply by means of the Jujuy-Tarija road, which is now nearing completion. The next question for Bolivia will be the acquisition of a good port on the Paraguay River, since the wretched harbor Puerto Suarez cannot care for the products of northern and eastern Bolivia.
Much needed rain has fallen, although it will not be possible to settle this year the long-standing fight between the government and the railroads. The solution of this problem would do wonders for the agricultural and commercial development of the country, but as the contract of the old government with the railroads was not passed on by the chambers, the question will have to await the action of the next House. The relations with the neighboring countries, Argentina and Bolivia, are excellent, and Bolivia has adopted a friendly tone during the last few months. The government of President Ferreira, however, will do a great service to the country if it is able to settle the dispute with Bolivia over the Chaco territory to the satisfaction of the interests of Paraguay.
FRENCH AND AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW.
AN N elaborate analysis of American criminal law procedure, based on a study of the recent trial in New York of Harry K. Thaw for the murder of Stanford White, is contributed to a recent number of the Revue Bleu by M. T. Steeg, himself an eminent lawyer and a member of the French Chamber of Deputies.
While the English press generally has expressed disgust and criticism in its comments on the particular trial in question, this French legal writer finds, alongside of much to condemn, a good many features of our criminal law procedure which he regards as highly commendable and worthy of study by the French bar. In the first place, he says, Frenchmen should not judge a great criminal trial in the United States from the hurried press reports, since incompleteness and sensationalism are almost inevitable features of such reports. American methods, to begin with, do not resemble those of the classic, dignified Court of Assizes. There is, how
ever, sound reason, he declares, “back of almost all that shocks or astonishes us in American procedure."
It should not be forgotten, he continues, that the basic, radical difference between Latin and Anglo-Saxon law is that the former holds a man guilty until he is proved innocent, while the latter insists that he is innocent until some one else proves him guilty. This difference is discernible through all criminal procedure in all Anglo-Saxon countries and on the continent of Europe. Frenchmen, he says, call a man under arrest for crime always "the prisoner," "the inculpated," whereas in America the accused is known as the defendant." American society, of its own free will, multiplies obstacles between the accused and the accusers. Even the complication of legal procedure has for its object to guarantee the right of the individual against what might possibly be too swift or too arbitrary governmental action. In France the public prosecutor and his offi
cers emanate directly from the state and act in the name of the chief of state, whereas in America the prosecuting attorney is in most cases elected by the people.
In the United States justice under the law is not a machine, to hold as in a vise the creature once caught in its grip. It is simply an organized series of active jurisdictions of uniform type, and each one of these jurisdictions permits
the individual to disprove or repudiate the accusation and to escape his accusers when proof of his guilt is not absolutely certain.
In France, he continues, all infractions of law are qualified as crimes. In English law, in the United States, there is much more of a distinction, and many infractions known as crimes in France are simply felonies in America. Moreover, when the law is broken whose business is it to report the crime and denounce the breaker?
In France it is the inevitable, pitiless government official. In the United States it is the wit
ness, the first comer, the person who happens to see the act. The American law practically forces the witness to report the crime. It forbids him to keep silent. Our French public sentiment may regard denunciation of crime as of doubtful elegance. In America a failure to report crime is classified as culpable negligence, civic weakness, lack of moral force, a menace to public safety.
Moreover, in France the papers in the case are handed to the examining magistrate by the public prosecutor or his officials. In America, on the other hand, the procedure
refuses to intrust one man with the power to judge. Consequently, the magistrate sends the papers to the grand jury, another vital difference between the real democracy of America and the bureaucratic democracy of France. The examination ended, the grand jury may find that the indictment does not show cause to justify prosecution, and it may so decide; the case may also fall through technicalities, all this inuring to the benefit of the accused person. In France justice is surer, swifter, but perhaps serves more often the cause of injustice. Between the French and American methods of impaneling a jury there is this difference: In French law the jury is admonished upon two formal occasions to decide only according to their consciences and their secret convictions. In America the charge of the judge is that the verdict shall be delivered in accordance with the evidence.
French penal law demands "secret conviction" as a criterion of certainty. It is at this point that the American method of procedure, with all its tendencies to disgusting It more prurient sensationalism, is better. often secures justice. At least, if it errs, it does so on the right side. A minor difference is that in America the defense is always expected to plead "not guilty," even when the commission of the crime is incontestible. In France, however, the defense would have to make some such plea as "legitimate exasperation" in extenuation of homicide.
THE BRYAN-BEVERIDGE DEBATE.
IN the April issue of the Indianapolis government are unsound," says he, "then Reader, Mr. Bryan replies to the paper the whole theory of self-government is deof Senator Beveridge, and the latter, in turn, fective." The people want to do what is to that of Mr. Bryan, both of which ap- right, and that must be fundamentally aspeared in the March number of that maga- sumed. In proof of his contention he cites zine, and were reviewed in these pages last the negro and the Oriental problems, both of month. Mr. Bryan's contribution is brief, which are sectional and concerning which and his argument is clearly stated. His only those in close proximity are competent former tendency to verbosity has forsaken to judge. He speaks of the change in sentihim with advancing years, and this is some- ment in a Northerner who spends some time thing his readers will be thankful for. He in the South, and twits Senator Beveridge. characterizes Senator Beveridge's presenta- for not including these questions as subjects tion as bald, plausible, and unconvincing. which "the American people themselves acting in common" could solve.
Taking issue with his theory, that the national Government is the whole people and On the subject of railroads and predatherefore right in all it does,-Mr. Bryan tory corporations, which Senator Beveridge. endeavors to show that on local matters the claimed were clamoring for "States' rights," people of a State are nearer to the subject, Mr. Bryan said that these bodies were not and, therefore, can act more intelligently. loyal to either federal or State rights; that "If the arguments in defense of local self- they were, in effect, freebooters and accus
tomed to seek shelter from the federal pow- Revolution developed a national spirit for ers when harassed by the State authorities, union, as shown in the Declaration of Indeand to exclaim against federal authority pendence. The Articles of Confederation when threatened from that quarter. The attempted to reconcile the old order of entry of United States troops into Illinois under direction of President Cleveland, he shows, was not because of a conspiracy between the mob, the Legislature, and the Governor of Illinois, but because the United States mails had been obstructed and the process of United States courts interfered with. He rebukes Senator Beveridge for his construction of this matter.
States' rights and the new nationality. They failed, and gave way to the Constitution,"our ordinance of nationality,"—which was ratified by the people, while the amendments to it, including the Tenth, under which States' rights' advocates take refuge,—were ratified by the legislatures.
Slavery, and the bloody war waged for its suppression, says he, was an incident of States' rights, leading to secession,-the logical conclusion of that doctrine. "States' rights should be preserved when they mean the people's rights, but not when they mean
In practice, the railroad magnate is for local self-government or for centralization, according to the conditions which he has to meet. Jay Gould is quoted as having said that he was a Republican in Republican counties, and a Democrat in Democratic counties, but always for the people's wrongs," and national action is Erie; and so it may be said that the railroads required to curb the power of syndicated are for state's rights whenever they are fighting wealth. In this there is nothing despotic or a federal law and for centralization whenever calculated to weaken the attachment of the they are fighting a State law, but that they are people for the Government, as Mr. Bryan alleges.
always, in any case, for themselves and for their
Senator Beveridge refers to a number of cases in which federal measures or the action of the national executive have been criticised on the ground that they interfered with the reserved rights of the States. But the cases cited do not support his own position or the arguments of those who would reduce the influence of the State to a minimum.
The national bank charter, he declares, contradicts rather than confirms Senator Beveridge, for it was not advocated by the people, but by the moneyed interests. Obscene literature, the lottery, pure food and meat inspection laws, were within the province of the Government and without the State's jurisdiction, and the Child-Labor bill of Senator Beveridge, he sweetly adds, was a principle in the Democratic platform more than six years ago. Mr. Beveridge, he says, is opposed in everything he contended for by this utterance of Lincoln: "The maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends."
Senator Beveridge in Rejoinder.
Senator Beveridge, in answer to Mr. Bryan, says his argument is "only a halfway house in the long journey of the people toward nationality." The States were originally created by the British King in order to govern them the easier when separate. The
THE CALIFORNIA QUESTION.
Reverting to the California-Japanese question, he says it is an illustration of the danger to the Republic concealed in the doctrine which the selfish policy of a British King first planted on this continent. This, because of the practical nullification of a treaty with Japan because of San Francisco's attitude. Had we been compelled to engage in hostilities over it, he says, nothing more absurd " or "more awful" could happen. Then, turning to San Francisco's earthquake, he shows that federal troops entered California without the request of its Legislature or Governor, in violation of States' rights, and the Government was applauded for it! If Mr. Bryan approves of this, why does he disapprove of the mild attitude of President Roosevelt in pleading to avert a national war?
Think of that! The president of ninety millions of people pleading with the mayor of a few thousands of people to prevent those few thousands from plunging the whole ninety millions into war. To this deep humiliation,— to this grave danger,-State's rights brings us.
We Americans stand before the world higher than we have ever stood before. Every step upward in the world's esteem has been won by nationality. All the contempt of the world for us has been earned by the foolish doctrine of States' rights sown in American soil by the English kings. Shall we be one people, the greatest force for righteousness beneath the skies, or shall we be forty-six peoples? That, in the final analysis, is the question. Shall we have one flag or forty-six flags?
THE "RURAL-DEGENERACY" CRY IN NEW ENGLAND.
UNTIL quite recently the belief was gen- money. Worthington, not far from the
NO MORE ABANDONED FARMS."
In the New England Magazine for April Mr. Edward A. Wright contributes a hopeful paper on this matter, in which he states that from a reliable source he has learned "that there are now practically no abandoned farms in Massachusetts." Commenting on the desire of settlers to secure these properties, he says: "This demand has continued without important interruption during the past five years, and is increasing quite generally in most parts of New England. The largest number of purchasers are included in two classes, widely different in character and purpose, but both of great value in improving the small town in which they locate. One of these classes is composed of city people who are establishing summer residences; the other includes those who, having more or less knowledge of agriculture, are seeking inexpensive lands for permanent occupancy and cultivation, a large proportion of them taking up light specialties such as vegetable gardening, fruit-culture, poultry-raising, etc." Business consolidations and labor troubles are doing much to repopulate the hill towns, through their respective reductions in salary and enforced idleness. Huntington and Chester are towns in which good results are apparent. A farm that rented for $40 a year in Chester, four years ago, under fertilization last year yielded $600 worth of produce, and trebled in value. A few miles distant a farm was sold to a Pole for $3500 who had no capital. In one year, from its returns, he was enabled to pay $800 on account of the purchase
IMPROVED INDUSTRIAL AND EDUCATIONAL
Light manufacturing and handicraft have turned to the country for opportunity, and many skilled city workmen have located in rural communities. Some of these own their homes and shops, and successfully carry on their business, surrounded by pleasant and most desirable social advantages. The moral tone of these hillside towns is unimpeachable. Sobriety is fundamental and profanity rare. On the subject of religious observance, he has this to say: "In rural New England the church is the social center. In the average hill towns, as I have seen them, threefourths of the adult resident population are church members; nearly everybody is friendly to the church and contributes to its support, even if contributions are necessarily small." Education is similarly respected. "The country school is not decadent," says he. "The number of school buildings has decreased with the population, but a lowering of their educational standard has been prevented by the combined efforts of State and town. This is true of the average hill town. A feature quite generally adopted in recent years in localities where children live long distances from the schoolhouse is that of providing for their being carried to and from school at public expense."
New Hampshire is deriving benefit from the "old-home week" movement, instituted by Governor Rollins five years ago, and Massachusetts likewise from a similar endeavor. The modernized national and State boards of agriculture are helpful in reclaiming these farm towns. The arts-and-crafts settlements and city-country clubs have rendered service in improving the social and industrial conditions of New England's hill towns.
THE RETIREMENT OF COUNT OKUMA, LEADER OF
COUNT OKUMA'S resignation of his
post as the leader of the Progressive party, announced in his own recent speech, is perhaps the most noteworthy event in the current record of Japanese politics. The founder of that political party, the Count has been identified with it ever since it came into existence, some twenty-five years ago. Though seventy-four years of age, this veteran statesman is still full of mental vigor and physical energy, possessed of unusually retentive memory and eloquent speech; and it is but natural that his retirement, unexpected by even those closest to him, should have provoked much comment in the columns of the Japanese press and periodicals. Perhaps the best explanation for this sudden step assumed by the Count is found in an article by Mr. Toyabe, appearing in the latest issue of the Taiyo, a leading Tokio monthly. According to this well-known writer, the Count's announcement of resignation is couched in such equivocal terms that a perusal of it leads one to wonder whether he really means to resign.
"The Count declares that, to give his coUNT OKUMA, LEADER OF THE JAPANESE PROparty more freedom of activity, his retirement is advisable; and yet almost in the same breath he says that he will never cease to take active part in political movements as long as his health will allow. Resignation or no resignation, he will remain the guiding force of his party."
Toyabe believes that Okuma's resignation is shrewd diplomacy, intended to bring it home to the dissatisfied members of his party that without his guidance the Progressive party cannot maintain its integrity. The revision of the constitution of that party, recently effected by its leading members, was nothing but a slap at Count Okuma, substituting, as it did, a committee for a leader as its directing organ. This, in the opinion of the writer, is the most serious blunder ever committed by the Progressive party. The Count is the life of that party: without him it cannot but deteriorate. The Count, though shrewd enough to conceal his feeling, is no doubt annoyed by the ungrateful attitude of his party toward him, and means to administer a gentle admonition. He speaks of the revised constitution in highly laudatory terms; yet no sane person can fail to recognize a tone of sarcasm in his commendation. Commenting upon the political ideals of Count Okuma, the writer says:
It has always been his aspiration to establish of the English Parliament, and for the realizaa representative government after the principles tion of this ideal he sacrificed his personal ambitions and selfish desires, estranging himself even from his former colleagues in the government. True, he is not contented with the position of a mere opponent of the government; certainly he. is aspiring to organize a ministry under his own leadership. He cannot, however, resort to expediency in order to approach power. To him, popular support is the only avenue through which he can lead his followers to the portfolios of the cabinet. And it is his conviction that the support of the people can be secured ultimately by adhering to the political ideals incorporated in the platform of his party. When the present Cabinet was organized by Marquis Saionji, the Count did not hesitate to assume a friendly attitude toward it, believing that the new Premier will not allow himself to be influenced by the bureaucrats, but will endeavor to reform adparliamentary government. Finding his hopes ministration in accord with the principles of a blighted, however, Count Okuma has become a stanch antagonist of the Saionji cabinet. He is aware that in the present stage of the political development in Japan it is hopeless for him to assume power without fraternizing with the bureaucracy, whose influence he regards as inimical to the wholesome growth of the constitutional government in the Mikado's Empire. Consequently, he remains in opposition, faithful to his political ideals, and untiring in assailing the bureaucracy.