Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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