Newspaper Page Text
Editorial
Page
“English Led and English Ruled”-—Says Page
Saying silly things has long been one of the chief activities
of United States Ambassadors to the Court of St. James, and it
appears that Mr. Walter H. Page no more than his predecessors
has been able to resist the temptation to slop over in the effort
to be at one with the British aristocracy.
It does, however, seem to have been a peculiarly inept and
indecorious thing for Ambassador Page to assure his British
auditors just at this moment that it added greatly to the pleasure
of the American people in building the Panama Canal that the
British would get the most good out of it. That may be the
opinion of the Administration; it is not that of the American
people.
Of course, it is the business of a diplomat to ‘‘jolly’’ the
people of the country to which he is accredited, but it is even
more his duty to avoid misrepresenting the people of his own
land. James Russell Lowell once said that no man could be
truly cosmopolitan unless he knew something of his own coun
try. In the same way it would appear that no man can fitly
represent his country in foreign lands unless he knows some
thing about its public sentiment.
Mr. Page must certainly know that the feeling he attributes
to Americans does not exist. It is a matter of the deepest morti
fication and regret to all Americans that of the endless pro
cession of ships that will pass through the Panama Canal only a
pitiful minority will fly the American flag.
But more! It is a matter not only of mortification and
regret, but of indignation and wrath as well, that the Admin.
istration which Ambassador Page represents is doing all it can
to discourage even the few American shipowners who will use
the canal, by levying tolls on their ships at British behest.
The Ambassador, doubtless, spoke for his chief—though he
did not speak for the American people—when he expressed grat
ification that OUR canal, dug in OUR country, by OUR engi
neers with OUR money, would yield its greatest profit to Great
Britain.
He spoke for his chief again when he expressed pleasure
that the American tariff would add to British trade with this
country. ¥
He spoke again for his chief when he sneered at the Monroe
Doctrine as merely a vague dislike of Americans for European
landowning on this continent.
As an exponent abroad of President Wilson's views Am.
bassador Page is loquacious, but his loguacity is never checked
Supreme Court of the United States Kills Pure Food Law
The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the
‘“‘bleached flour case’’ was unfortunate. Of course, it is the law,
now that the highest court in the land has so proclaimed it, but
it is the duty of Congress to take such action as shall make it.law
no longer.
Can congress do this? Sanguine people of course declare
that it can, and indeed.it is probable that with the specific words
of the court at hand, and legislating only to overcome a decision
which has practically nullified the pure food act, Congress might
be successful.
But the decision is another one of those which of late have
attracted attention because of their effect in nullifying carefully
matured legislation. Professing to uphold the pure food law,
it proceeds %o destroy its effectiveness by declaring that the
presence of poisonous substances in food is not proof of the vio
lation of the law, but that the Government must prove, in trying
a case of this sort, that the substances were present in quantities
sufficient to cause injury to the health of the consumer.
It is somewhat as if a defaulter might escape punishment
because the bank he robbed was strong enough to bear its loss
without failing, or as though a rian convicted of burning a house
should plead that the flame of the match which touched it off
was such a little one.
The Supreme Court tells us that flour may be reasonably
poisonous without coming under the ban of the pure food law.
But how shall it be determined when the limit of reason in the
administration of poisons in guise of food is reached? Are the
millers and bleachers of flour to go on adding poisonous sub
stances until they have actually killed some one? Is it not
possible that an amount of poison that would be harmless to one
of strong physique might kill a weakling? Was the pure food
law passed for the protection of the strong alone?
Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, who has had to fight for his pure
ment, points out with vigor that under this decision every manu.
facturer or purveyor of food may add to his product a small
portion of some poisonous preservative. Coal tar dye may be put
in butter, formaldehyde in milk, nitrous acid in flour, arsenic
in baking powder, sulphur dioxide in syrup, potassium nitrate
in sausage, and so on until, as the doctor says, ‘‘when the mem.
bers of the Supreme Court sit down to a feast in which every
thing they eat and drink is slightly poisoned, they may find
‘ %fl:—_
WEEKLY; 47 GEORCGIAN
] AN
because he so accurately expresses the opinions of his superior.
For example, last November, addressing an English throng
at Southampton, he expressed this notable opinion:
“In spite of the great fusion of races and of the great contributions
which other nations have made to the one hundred millions of people
across the sea, and to her ncalculab le wealth, THE UNITED STATES IS
YET ENGLISH-LED AND ENGLISH-RULED.”
This was Woodrow Wilson’s opinion expressed in his writ
ings before he became a candidate for President. He suppressed
this opinion, prudently, for a time, but has recurred to it in
practice while his personal Ambassador heralds it forth om
British soil. '
Unhappily, at the moment the Wilson-Page theory is true.
We are ‘‘Englich-led’’ and ‘‘English-ruled.”” We are to be led
by English emissaries to the point of violating our pledges and
repealing our laws governing our domestic navigation. We
are English-ruled to the extent that the British Ambassador
has more influence at the White House than the voice of the
American people, and the demand of the Ambassador is enforced
upon Congress by the imperial mandate of the President.
According to one London newspaper:
“Mr. Page took it upon himself to say, on his own responsibility,
that the President delivered his (Panama) message not merely to please
Great Britain, but to express these ntiment and self-respect of our peo
ple. The President’s voice was the voice of the people. Nevertheless, it
added to the pleasure of that voice t o know it did please Great Britain.”
Surely this is a weak concession on the part of our Am
bassador to say that the President did not deliver his Panama
message ‘‘merely to please Great Britain.”” That should have
been a sufficient reason. What more patriotic pleasure could a
President find than in haranguing Congress for the gratification
of the British Embassy? To say that this gratification is only
incidental is to deprive President Wilson of part of his credit
for being ‘‘English-led and Englished-ruled.”’
With the Ambassador in London and the President and
Secretary of State in Washington finding their greatest joy in
helping England to profit by our enterprise, what chance of
fair play is there for the American people?
Senator Chamberlain has very properly demanded the
fullest information as to the Ambassador’s precise words, and the
significance intended. It is true that the pro-British party at
Washington is claiming enrough votes to pass the bill taxing
American coastwise ships using the Canal, but it seems rather
early for the Ambassador to be congratulating the British on
their victory.
His speech, however, has its value. It shows the Repre
sentatives and Senators just exactly whom they are to benefit
by voting for the President’s plan. As Ambassador Page so
neatly put it, they may be happy ‘‘because the British people
wiil make the most out of it.”’
A vote against the existing free tolls law is a vote to still
further intrench Creat Britain &s mistress of the seas. The
repealing bill can only be passed by a Congressional majority,
“ENGLISH-LED AND ENGLISH-RULED.”
food law against all three branches of the National Govern
that the rule of reason will not apply.”’
The decision of the Supreme Court practically ties the hands
of the Government. It is easy to prove the presence of poison
ous substances in food. It is impossible, except in extreme
cases, to prove that such substances are present in sufficient
quantity to be injurious to human health. But poison has no
place in food in any quantity, however small. Manufacturers
putting it there must have done it for some ulterior purpose. Its
detection, in whatever quantity, should be conclusive evidence
of the vielation of the law.
A lower court so held it, but the Supreme Court reversed
the decision, basing its opinicn on the phrase in the law which
prohibits poisonous or deleterious ingredients “WHICH MAY
RENDER SUCH ARTICLE INJURIOUS TO HEALTH."
Who can say that the very smallest particle of nitrous acid
may not be injurious to health? The lower court gave the people
the benefit of the doubt, declaring the presence of poison in any
quantity a violation of the laws. But the Supreme Court at one
stroke deprived the law of all practical value by putting on the
State the burden of proving that in any given case the poison
detected was present in quantities certainly hurtful to health.
After this decision the pure food law is as though it never
had been passed.
Decisions of this sort make the people impatient. They raise,
and justifiably, the cry for the recall of judges. It is a flat nega
tion of the whole theory of popular government that after a
proposed law has been agitated for years, discussed in the press
and on the platform, debated in all its phases by Congress, passed
and signed by the President, a court which took no”part in the
discussion, and which is wholly ignorant of the merits of the case,
should set aside all the fruit of this long agitation by construing
the law in a way its makers never intended.
Supreme Court decisions are more and more taking on this
character, and with each one the dissatisfaction of the public is
more openly expressed. The passage of a law has ceased to
mean anything. If an Attorney General objects to it he declines
to enforce it. If the Supreme Court disapproves it, the law
is nullified. The pure food law, which now stands as a dead let
ter, is only the latest and most irritating instance of this tend
ency to override the lawmaking body of the nation.
Week Ending
Mar. 17,1914
