Newspaper Page Text
4
THE SEMI-WEEKLY JOURNAL
ATLANTA, GA., 5 NORTH I -ORSYTH ST.
Entered at the Atlanta Postoflice as Mail Matter
- nf ihe Second Class.
. ’ St'ISM ’KIFTION PRICK
Twelve months <a ‘
Six months
Three months Zac
The Semi-Weekly Journal is published on
Tuesday and Friday, and is mailed by the short
est routes for early delivery.
It contains news from all over the world,
brought by special leased wires into our oflice.
It has a staff of distinguished contributors, with
strong departments of special value to the home
and the farm
▲gents wanted at every posiollice. Liberal
commission allowed. Outfit free. Write R. R
BRADLEY. Circulation Manager.
The only traveling representatives we have
are R F. Bolton. C. C. Coyle. Charles 11. Wood
UffrJ. M. Patten. W. H. Reinhardt. M. H. Bevil
and John Mac Jennings. We will be responsible
" only for money paid to the above named travel
s' ‘ ing representatives '
NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS.
Tbe label usefi for a<Mrrs»iag yoor paper sboas tb<- tituc
’■oar exptrra. By renewing at least two weeks be-
for the date on this label, you .Mure regular sen ice.
tn ordering paper change,’, be sure to mention your old. as
well -as your new address. If on a rente, please gisc the route
number.
We cannot enter snbscriptions to begin with hack numbers.
Remittances sboub! be sent by order or registered mail.
AdJresa aU order- and notices foe this Department to THE
SEMI WEEKLY JOVKXAL. Atlanta. Ga.
Georgia's Increased Tax Values.
L * The increase of approximately thirty-eight
million ’ dollars in Georgia’s tax valuations for
1917 as compared with the year, preceding bears
cheering witness to the State’s prosperity and also
to the growing gfticiency and fairness of tax re
turns. By far the greater part of the increase is
from property other than railroads and corpora
tion holdings, a large portion accruing from so
called •'intangible” property.
For the imj-ovements in method and in alti
tude thus indicated, the rank and file of the peo
ple have cause for hearty gratification. The surest
way both to lighten tax burdens and to provide
for the adequate support of public institutions is
I for every citizen to bear his equitable part of the
cost. This will mean smaller demands and larger
results all the way around. It will mean better
schools, better roads, better service in every branch
of the State’s Government and richer opportuni
ties for the people, along with lighter tax pressure
I upon the mass of them.
To further this end is the object of all well
considered legislation concerning tax methods. It
was particularly the object of the tax equalization
law enacted by the Georgia Legislature a few years
ago. Whatever may be the shortcomings of that
measure, its basic principle is undeniably sound;
and the steady increase in property valuations,
amounting to thirty-eight millions for the past
year, would seem to indicate that in practice also
it is justifying itself.
The President vs. the Politicians.
The rank and file of thoughtful Americans
I no patience with the political spleen and
partisanship that seek to weaken the Adminis
tration and to encumber its prosecution of the
war. Senator ‘Stone’s attack on Republi
can leaders. ill advised and regrettable
though it was. did not mark the beginning of
partisan tactics. For months past, both in Con
gress and out, persons and interests whose patriot
ism is unfortunately tinctured with political or
1 financial virus have conspired on every hand to
Bi discredit the war programme and war methods of
A President Wilson and* his official associates. We
B do not refer, of course, to open-minded, construc-
B tive criticism, which is always to be welcomed,
but to that querulous, petty complaint which re
teals in its every tone and gesture the animus of
personal or partisan interest. With that spirit, the
■ vast majority of Americans, whether Democrats or
Republicans, are altogether out of sympathy, for
they see that it is a handicap if not a grave menace
to the cause that lies nearest their he?*M.
This strategy has resulted, enough,
in misguiding some minds which heretofore have
been admirably clear and steadfast in support of
the Administration. It was with painful astonish
ment that the country heard of Senator Chamber
lain’s unwarranted remarks on the conduct of the
war and of his proposed legislation for a so-called
”War Cabinet.’’ the inevitable result of which
would be to embarrass and weaken the Executive
Department. When Senator Chamberlain declared
that “the military establishment of America has
fallen down” and that “there is inefficiency in
every branch and every department of the United
States Government,” he forfeited all claim to the
public's confidence in anything further he might
have to say. For by those unfounded assertions,
which doubtless will hearten Germany as much as
they amazed this country, he showed that he is
either strangely uninformed or strangely indiffer
i ent to the Government’s vast sum of achievement
since our entrance into the war. The Senator’s
. utterances are to be accounted for partly, perhaps,
by the fact that he was speaking extemporaneously
| •in New York City to the Republican Club and the
National Security League—one of which organiza
tions 13 constitutionally doubtful of any good com
ing from Democratic control and the other of which
considers war efficiency impossible until certain
- pet projects of its own have been adopted. Jt Is
' to the Senator’s credit that on the. following day
he retracted what he had said concerning the Gov
■ ernment as a whole, limiting his criticism to the
War Department. But it is distinctly to the dis
credit of his judgment, to say the least, that he
over fell into such ill advised and really baseless
chatter.
When President Wilson, replying to the Cham
berlain statements, tells the country that “the War
Department has performed a task of unparalleled
magnitude and difficulty with extraordinary
i promptness and efficiency," the people believe the
President. And they believe him when he adds:
"My association and constant conference
with the Secretary of War have taught me tn
regard him as one of the ablest public offi
cials I have ever known. The country soon
. * will learn whether he or his critics under
’ * stand the business in hand.”
If ever a President demonstrated executive ability
and mastery of affairs Mr. Wilson has done so.
Faced by extremely difficult problems and tre
mendous ta«ks from the earliest days of hi* ad
ministration. he has gone on from year to year
establishing a record of performance unexampled
in American hisory. Time and again in spite of
towering odds, he .as pressed his plans to con
summation and fulfilled his pledges to the country.
Why, then, should we not trust him now in the
task that challenges his finest mettle and calls forth
his largest measure of devotion to America and
mankind?
If we cannot trust his tested leadership, to
whom shall we turn in this crucial hour? Ts the.
officials in whom he has complete confidence and
through whom he is carrying out his policy as
Commander in Chief are not to be depended upon,
where shall we seek to find their betters? The
war is now being prosecuted through the executive
agencies provided by the Constitution; and not
withstanding partisan clamor and personal spleen,
v e have no evidence that on the w hole it is not
lieing prosecuted with equal earnestness and effi
ciency. Os what us**, then, would it be Jto go be
yond the methods provided by the Constitution
and set up a so-called “War Cabinet" in conflict
with the Administration’s course and in antagon
ism to the President’s plainly expressed and well
reasoned wishes? The certain consequence of that
step would be divided counsel, divided authority,
confusion, delay and a perilous impairment of the
nation's war efficiency.
Such errors as have marked the conduct of the
war thus far have been for the most part in mat
ters of detail, and they have not been repeated.
But let this proposed "War Cabinet." with its po
litically inspired dissension, be thrust into the sit
uation. and we shall have something infinitely
worse than any error which the severest critics of
Secretary Baker have been able to point out; we
shall have war management for purposes of pol
itics instead of for purposes of victory. Against
that dangerous contingency every true American in
Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, should
vote, and every true American the nation over,
should lift his innuence. The issue is plainly one
of the President against the politicians, and tlfe
choice for intelligent patriotism is unmistakably
clear.
Thrift Stamps As War Winners
And J.s Prosperity Builders.
In urging the purchase of War Savings stamps
the Columbus Ledger truly observes that “aside
from the fact that they prove a most profitable in
vestment and that the Government needs all avail
able funds at this time, the movement is certain
to encourage thrift among the people, which will
be worth much more to them than the money can
possibly be worth to the Government.” That is
the pith of the matter. It is the broadly economic
and social and moral possibilities of the movement
that makes it one of the most important in Amer
ican history.
It should not be forgotten that the sale of
these stamps will place at the Government’s dis
posal some two billion dollars for the maintenance
of our armies and the winning of the war. Thus
every purchaser of a Thrift stamp acquires a part
nership in the greatest work the United States ever
has undertaken and turns his patriotism to helpful
account. It should be remembered, too. that this
form of Government security—these “baby bonds,”
as they have been aptly a highly
profitable rate of interest. As for safety, no in
vestment could be surer; they are backed by all
the power of the American Government and all
the wealth and resources of the American people.
But' the most distinctive merit of the Thrift
stamp movement is the opportunity and incentive
it offers the mass of the peofile for saving the pen
nies and nickels and dimes which so often slip
through their fingers without yielding anything of
value in return. To supplant wastefulness, which
has been a long-noted American trait, with habits
of thrift will add immeasurably to the nation’s
strength and security and to the happiness of its
people. Without thrift, we cannot expect to take
care of the billions of dollars of war bonds yet to
oe issued and the billions of taxes to be paid. Nor
can we expect as individuals to meet the responsi
bilities that will press more and more heavily
upon us. Patriotism and self-interest alike de
mand that thrift be practiced and practiced and
practiced until it becomes a habit with our up
wards of one hundred million people. Then there
will be no difficulty in carrying the country’s war
burdens or in shouldering the individual load.
There will then be no danger of prosperity failing
ns, for thrift is the one sure safeguard of proper
ty, and is the one sure pathway to material success.
Atlanta’s sure safeguard of prosperity and
Georgia’s response to this movement is yet far
short of what it should be, and far short of what
the interests of the city and the State require. We
cannot afford to let our record lag in this highly
important work. For the sake of the community
and the Commonwealth as well as of the Nation,
we must see to it that the principles and methods
for which the Thrift stamps stand are inculcated in
our daily life. As patriots we are bound to do our
part in raising the two billion dolFars which the
Government proposes to borrow in the form as war
savings; and as h ersons mindful of practical needs,
it certainly behooves us to lay by for the uncertain
days ahead.
The South's Ports in Winter.
The traffic problems resulting from the rigors
of this extraordinary winter emphasize anew the
nation’s need of a larger utilization of Southern
ports. The Savannah Morning News seasonably
observes on this point that nowhere in the South
has there been an instance of trains freezing to
tracks, or of delays because of sncrw-piled road
beds, or of tee blocking the proper lightering of
supplies in harbors, or of an excessive demand
upon the loading facilities at ports. Nor is there
any valid reason, our contemporary adds, “for
crowding Northern tracks and harbors i»i the
winter time while the perennially harbors
of the South are not being used to anything like
their capacity.”
It is hardly imaginable that conditions will
continue in this respect as they were up to the
time of the Government’s taking charge of trans
portation. Now that the urgent business of mov
ing basic supplies from the interior to the coast
is under unified direction and control, it is to be
expected that vast quantities of ocean-bound
freight which heretofore have glutted the terminals
of North Atlantic outlets will be diverted to South
ern lines and Southern ports. While this is im
perative during the season of ice and snow, it is
advisable as a year-around policy. The traffic
problems that press so disturbingly upon the
United States today arc not of recent or sudden
origin. They have been growing ceaselessly since
the early autumn of 1914, If not indeed for a
decade; and they are traceable in no small meas
ure to the practice of attempting to crowd the
vast bulk of the country’s transatlantic commerce
through the narrow funnel of one of the North
Atlantic porta. •
LHE ATLANTA SEMI-WEEKLY JOURNAL, ATLANTA, GA., FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 1918,
War, Food and Prices.
i This editorial space has been given by this
paper fo’’ this issue to the service of the Federal
Food Administration for Georgia.)
Did you ever stop to wonder why food prices
are high in war times? Or have you just com
plained about the fact that they are high, and then
wondered why in the world the government hasn’t
stepped in and brought them back to the ante-bel
lum level?
The next time you complain about prices, stop
to think of the farmer who grew the things you
are buying. Do you know' that he is paying $2.50
or $2.00 a day for labor he could get before the
war for $1 or $1.25 —and that he is having a
mighty hard time getting anybody at all? Do you
know that every railroad in the country is con
gested and that it is much more difficult to get
farm products to market than it was a year ago?
Do you know that the man who buys food from
the farmers and then distributes it to the whole
sale dealers, has to pay much more for his labor
than he did before the war. And do you know that
all of his necessary expenses have been on the as
cendant? Do you know that the wholesale dealef
is paying wages and salaries that he could scarcely
have dreamed of a few years ago?—and that the
same thing is true of the retailers?
And then, on the other hand, when you “won
der why the government hasn’t taken a hand,”
have you stopped to consider that prices have ris
en on a much lower scale than has ruled in other
wars? Have you thought when you paid nine or ten
cents for sugar, with the country going through
an actual sugar famine, that it would have gone
much higher had not the government, through the
United States food administration, taken measures
to stabilize the market? Have you stopped to won
der why the wholesale price of flour is less than
sll a barrel, when it went as high’as sls last sum
mer and threatened to keep mounting? Have you
remembered that the farmer is getting more money
out of $lO or sll flour today than he got .out of
sl4 or sls flour six months ago?
No, you haven’t thought of those things. You
just know that prices are high, and that you won
der why “somebody doesn’t do something about
it.” If you stopped to think, maybe your tone
would change from complaint to wonder. Prices
are high, but the wonder is that they are npt far
higher, when you come to think of it.
People complain about war time prices. They
complain because they are asked to reduce their
consumption of meats, wheat, sugar and fats. They
complain because some of the substitutes cost more
than the food they are asked to save for their as
sociates on the other side of the ocean.
All right, suppose that we grant their com
plaint about prices. But then let us look at the
thing from another angle. Prices are high. There
is no way to get around that. War time prices have
always been high. They always will be high. But
if we ate only the things we liked fully as well as
the things we must save, and if we ate only the
substitutes that were cheaper, how much of a sac
rifice would we be making in order to help win
this war?
Suppose that the men who are supplying
our ammunition said it was disgraceful to pay
high prices for steel when wood was so much
cheaper. And then just suppose that they used the
wood to make onr guns and our shells—it’s much
cheaper and could be painted and smoothed down
to look like steel.
How long do you think our armies could stay
in the trenches with wooden guns and wooden
shells? They could stay just about as long as they
could if we made prices the excuse for taking food
out of their mouths.
Prices or no prices, they must eat to win this
war. Those people need beef, pork and mutton,
wheat, sugar and fats. If we fail to save in order
that they may have them, we could just as well
close down our steel plants and send them shells
made of wood.
yhere there is war, food cannot be produced.
.A* steel plow helps production, but steel is not a
good cultivator when it breaks the land in the
form of a shell. That has been shown in France.
Italy, Belgium and all of the other countries shat
tered by battle. But a nation can be at war and
still maintain production, if the battle lines do not
encroach on the farms. That has been shown in
Germany and is being shown in the United States.
We have been charged with the tremendous task
of feeding our associates in this war, of maintain
ing production on a scale that will meet our actual
needs and still leave enough to fill the gap be
tween Europe’s production and consumption. The
only solution is to reduce our own use of the foods
most needed abroad. We must employ substitutes
for beef, pork and mutton: wheat, sugar and fats.
This war is as much ours as it is Europe’s, and
there is no reason why we should ask Europe to
lear all of the sacrifices and deprivations.—From
the Federal Food Administration for Georgia.
THE SOUTH MUST FEED ITSELF.
Editor The Journal: I have just read the splen
did editorial, urging the farmers of the south to
raise more foodstuffs in order to be self-sustain
ing. This has prompeted me to write the enclosed
letter, which I am mailing to every banker in the
state.
Yours very truly,
FRANK HAWKINS, President.
Mr. Hawkins, who is president of the Third Na
tional Bank of Atlanta, has sent out ten thousand
copies of the following letter:
Dear Sir: Let me add a brief personal word to
Mr. McAdoo’s appeal to the people of the south to
raise their own foodstuffs.
Our experiences already have proven to us the
importance of being self-sustaining. Unless we
provide against it, there is not only possibility, but
probability that these experiences will be far more
severe another winter than they are now.
The coal situation has taught us a lesson that
we may well apply to food. Let us start a campaign
at once to indelibly impress upon our farmers that
they must not have their smokehouses and their
corn cribs in the west, while this world struggle
is going on. If they do, and transportation facili
ties should fall short, it is easy to see how the
sodth might soon be on half rations.
Again, we must not only raise food to protect
ourselves, but also in order to conserve our trans
portation facilities which are everywhere needed for
the successful prosecution of the war. We must
raise food so that there will be enough to meet both
our own demands and those of our allies.
WE MUST, TH ERE TORE. MAKE COTTON A
SECONDARY CONSIDERATION IN OUR 1918
CROPS.
As a prominent citizen and banker of your com
munity. I feel you can exert strong influence with
the farmers of your section to this end. Thirty
rent cotton is a great temptation, but even dollar
cotton won’t buy food, if it is not to be had. The
present coal situation is sufficient evidence of this.
Besides, at present prices, there is fully as much
or more profit to the farmer in food products, than
there is in cotton.
Let us as bankers, having the country’s as well
as the farmers’ interest at heart, give the farmer
every assurance that we stand squarely back of him
in his effort to meet this pressing food problem, in
which is involved not only our own safety, but the
winning of the war.
Yours very truly.
FRANK HAWKINS. President.
QUIPS AND QUIDDITIES
—• —
“I got me money from the disthrict council,”
he called to her.
. “Did yez, then, Mr. Derrigan? It’s glad I am.
How much did yez get?”
“Two pounds.”
“Glory be! An’ hev’ yez the money?”
“I hev not, but I had it.”
“What did yez do with it?”
“Sure, bought two pounds' worth of docks
wid IU"
THE PRESIDENT’S WATER POWER BILL
We Waste Millions of Horsepower In Our Rivers—How the President and Con
gress Propose to Develop It
By Frederic J. Haskin
WASHINGTON, D. C„ Jan. 19.—The amount
of hydro-electric energy that could be
obtained from the rivers of the United
States is conservatively estimated at 35,000,000
horsepower a year. The amount that has been de
veloped is about 7,000,000 horsepower.
With the country facing its first greait coal
shortage, this waste of power gains a new sig
nificance. It is evident that we can no longer af
ford it. The scarcity of print paper, which threat
ened the lives of many periodicals not loqg ago,
would also be relieved by the development of wa
ter power, for many of the sites are close to an
abundant supply of the kind of timber that is used
for making good pulp.
The bill which President Wilson laid before a
conference of congressmen a short time ago is an
attempt to stop this waste and obtain the develop
men of our water-power resources by making the
undertaking attractive to capital, while at the same
time safeguarding the rights of the public, and
keeping the title to the water power sites in the
government. For water power is one natural re
source which still remains largely within public
ownership. The western states are estimated to
contain 72.6 of all the water power, and most of
the sites are on public lands, including national
forests, which alone contain 42 per cent of the
whole. In addition to this, much of the water
power in the eastern states, on the streams fall
ing from the Allegheny mountains, is controlled by
th government by reason of its jurisdiction over
navigable waters.
Many years ago, when our lax land laws en
abled almost anyone to gain title to any sort of
public land under the pretext that it was being
taken for agricultural purposes, some of our water
power sites were captured by private interests.
Later legislation was passed to put a stop to this.
The failure of capital to develop our water power
is commonly ascribed to the limitations imposed
by this legislation, and to the fact that three dif
ferent departments of the government share ju
risdiction over the resource. The forest service con
trols the water power on the national forests; the
war department controls the navigable waters,
and the interior department controls the water
power sites on public lands.
The law governing the use of water power on
public land provides what the secretary of the
interior may grant a permit for this purpose and
that he may revoke the permit at any time. It is
said that this latter provision has kept out the
investor.
The divided executive control of water is
reflected in congress, where three different
committees have to do with water power
legislation. Here the difficulty of passing an ade
quate water power law is increased by the fact
that the republicans and democrats cannot agree
as to how much control the states should have over
the water power within their boundaries. Also, the
house is anxious to safeguard the rights of the pub
lic, while the senate, as always. Is more thoughtful
of the financial interests which are called upon to
undertake the work of development.
Although the public has not heard very much
about it, congress has been sweating over this water
power problem for years. Both the senate and the
house have produced bills and have created bulky
volumes of hearings.
The president, as usual, proposes to cut right
through this tangle of conflicting interests, juris
dictions and dignities. His bill is different from
those of both the house and senate in that it gives
control of the water power to a new government
commission, to be known as the federal power com
mission, composed of the secretaries of war, inte
rior and agriculture. The house proposed to give
all the power to the secretary of the interior, and
the senate to the secretary of war, while the forest
service (part of the department of agriculture) pro
tested against both bills because they would take
away its control of water power on national forests.
The administration bill is designed to obtain e the
necessary centralized control without slighting any
one. The president also asks for the creation of a
special committee of congress having to do with
water power, thus getting the same centralization
in the legislative branch of the government.
The administration bill, drawn by government
STATISTICS
, By Dr. Frank Crane
Now, said the teacher one Friday afternoon, I
am going to give you some statistics about the
war. It a good plan for you to-know some
solid facts while there is so much loose talk go
ing on.
1. What nations are at war? The Entente
allies on the one side, and the Teutonic allies on
the other.
2. Name the Entente allies. Great Britain (in
cluding her. colonies —Canada, Newfoundland,
Australia. New Zealand and South Africa), krance,
Italy, Japan, China, Siam, Portugal, the United
States, Russia, and a few minor countries.
3. Name the Germany, Aus
tria, Turkey and Bulgaria.
4. What are the land areas of the two forces?
The Entente 19.526,000 square miles, and the
Teutonic 1,222,000.
5. Population. The Entente 473,250,000. and
the Teutonic 14 7,000,000.
6. What, per cent of the total land area in
volved belongs to the Entente allies? 94.1 per
cent To the Teutonic allies? 5.9 per cent.
7. What per cent of the population involved?
Entente 76.3 per cent. Teutonic 23.7.
8. What is the strength of the army and navy
of each side? The Entente allies have 21,400,000
fighting men and their opponents 11,000,000; that
is. 66 per cent of the total armies are Entente and
34 per cent Teutonic.
9. What is the total man power on each side.
Entente, 91,700,000; Teutonic, 25,000,000, or
78.5 per cent against 21.5 per cent.
10. What is the'difference in national wealth?
That of the Entente allies is $553,UD0,000,000, of
the Teutonic $135,000,000,000.
11. War debt? Total national debts of the
Entente, $83,960,000,000, or 14.7 per cent of their
wealth; of the Teutonic, $38,506,000,000, or 28.7
per cent of their wealth.
12. Total income? Entente. $82,100,000,000;
Teutonic, $16,600,000,000.
13. Wfiat has the war cost so far? Estimated
July, 1917, cost in money to the Entente allies,
$70,200,000,000; to the Teutonic, $109,500,000,-
OOo’ Cost in men, killed, wounded and missing,
to the Entente. 8,992.956: to the Teutonic, 6,301.-
773; total on both isdes. 15,294,729. Great losses
since this date but figures not available
14. Note that the combined debt of the Entente
allies is 14.7 per cent of their wealth, while that
of the Teutonic allies is 28.7 per cent of their
wealth.
15. Since the war began the Entente allies
have lost about 9 per cent of their original man
power, and the Teutonic allies have lost 20 per
cent. The Entente allies have spent 12 per cent
of their wealth, the Teutonic 29 per cent.
16. .Japan has an army of 1.500.000 men and
a man power of 10,500,000, which may be reck
oned as a reserve force. Russia has 5,000,000
men in the army and a pian power of 30,000,000,
but is an uncertain quantity at present.
17. As Russia drops out, however, the United
States of America comes in. having 22,000,000
men to draw upon, $225,000,000,000 in wealth,
and a national income of $40,000,000,000.
18. Against all the men and money advantages
of the Entente, however, Germany had the advan
tage of being thoroughly prepared, organized, anji
unified. The Entente has done most of its pre
paring since the war broke out. It is safe to say
Germany would have triumphed quickly if it had
not been for the British fleet. It alone was ready.
The figures in this article are taken from a
pamphlet published by the Bankers Trmjt com
pany, New York.
(Copyright, 1918, by Frank • Crane.)
experts, is more scientific than either the Shields
bill of the senate or the Ferris bill of the house.
It is more like the house bill in that it throws more
safeguards about the interests of the public, and is
less thoughtful of capital than the senate bill. The
differences, however, are for the most part minor.
The measure provides that the federal power
commission shall lease to citizens, corporations,
municipalities, states or other parties for periods
of fifty years the right to develop water power on
public lands and navigable waters. At the end of
the period the rights to the power site are to
revert to the government, which may renew the
lease to the same party or to another one, or may
operate the power plant itself. The rates charged
for power are to be regulated by state commissions,
whdre such exist, except when the power enters
into interstate commerce, in which case the federal
commission is to regulate the rates charged. It will
also have jurisdiction in states where no commis
sion to regulate rates exists.
These are the fundamentals of all three bills.
They vary as to details of terms upon which the
government may take over the property at the
expiration of a lease. The lease cannot be re
voked as long as the lessee obeys the law. The gov
ernment must approve the plans of the lessee for
construction; and he must develop the water power
adequately and competently.
The administration bill requires th It the lessee
shall pay the public for the use of water power sites
at the rate of not less than ten cents per horse
power per year, the rate to be fixed by the com
mission. The house bill also provides for payment
according to value. The senate bill would charge
the lessee only for his share of the upkeep of gov
ernment improvements which benefit him.
The administration bill is also different froii
those the congressmen have written, in that it gives
special advantages to states and municipalities.
They are to be given the use of water power free
of charge, and preference is to be given to their
applications for leases. This would seem, in fact,
to be the most important difference between the ad
ministration bill and those which have been before
congress. It means, for example, that instead of
corporations being allowed to develop power and
sell it to cities at a profit, the cities are going to be
given every opportunity to develop it for them
selves under federal control.
The administration bill also contains a provision
that the government may take over any of the
power plants developed under this act for .the pur
pose of manufacturing munitions, nitrates or other
materials needed in an emergency, such as war.
According to evidence brought out in the hear
ings before the house committee, there has been
growing up a more and more centralized control of
water power interests in the United States —that is,
we are raising a water power trust. In 1913 ten
groups of interests controlled most of the developed
water power in the country, and these were more or
less related through the well-known medium of in
terlocking directorates.
This centralization is. of course, to be expected.
The water power industry is merely repeating the
history of most other industries in this country.
Many of onr public utilities are controlled by little
groups of financiers, and these in turn are more or
less controlled by the government. This water
power bill is designed to make the government con
trol of the water power Industry effective and thor
ough by beginning at the bottom, so to speak. The
whole development is to be under government su
pervision. The federal power commission will reg
ulate the water power Industry in the Interests of
the public the same way that the Interstate com
merce commission is supposed to regulate the rail
roads in the interests of the public. But the task
is made easier in regard to water power by keening
the title to the fundamental resource involved in
the government, thus preventing speculation, amt
giving the government more power.
The administration bill certainly seems to pro
vide well for safsguartlhig- the public interest. The
question is whether 3he water power will be prompt-
Iv developed under this measure. Ts ft is not. some
other method —possibly development by the govern
ment itself —will have to be adopted. For the
United States can no longer afford to waste these
millions of horsepower. -
/ THE MAGIC OF COLORS
By H. Addington Bruce
AMOUFLAGE” is today almost a hackney
s ed word. Everybody now knows that it
means primarily the art of combining col
ors in such away as to deceive the eye and thereby
afford concealment and protection for military pur
poses.
Skilled practitioners of this art obtain seem
ingly magical effects. Colors which presumably
would render any object more conspicuous actually
decrease visibility when properly combined.
And, on the opposite, it is possible so to manip
ulate colors as to increase the visibility of objects,
to give them an appearance «f greater size than
they possess, or to heighten the intensity of one of
the colors brought into combination.
Fr military needs this second possibility in
color combination is far less important than the
first. But it is of special importance in matters of
everyday life, particularly as regards clothing and
household decoration. .
Recently this fact has been emphasized in a
most interesting book, “The Sense of Sight,” by
Professor Frank N. Spindler. Calling attention to
the singular phenomena of contrast effects in col
ors. Professor Spindler makes these practical sug
gestions:
“All have observed how black a negro looks
when wearing white clothes. A negro womans
face would look less black if she wore black—or
any color other than white.
“The same would apply to dark brunettes; they
should not wear white clothes or hats, unless they
wish to accentuate their dark complexions.
"If the brunette is of a rather pale or grayish
complexion she could wear green to advantage, as
that will tend to make her face appear more rosy.
This is seen in the charming effects of a green par
asol in such cases.
“She should, however, avoid red or blue, so
red clothing, hat or parasol will make the face
greenish, and blue will give it a yellowish tinge.
“The golden-haired, rosy-cheeked blonde can
wear white, although it will somewhat dull the
brilliancy and brightness of the hair and face.
"Black will accentuate her complexion. Blue
will make the yellow hair scent still more yellow,
and will not always hawnonize with the rose and
white complexion, since ft will tend to give it a
yellowish tinge, and yellow and red are discordant.
“If the blonde be of a pronounced reddish hair
and complexion she should not wear green, unless
she wishes her face and hair to appear still more
red. £ «
"The pale, naturally complexioned blonde, how
ever. coirid wear green to good advantage, w r hile
red, blue, or yellow would be doubtful.”
In household decoration, a room furnished in
oak and papered in brown or brownish red, looks
smaller than it really is. Change the paper to tan
and upholster the furniture in blues and the room’
gains an illusory appearance of spaciousness.
Blue and gray may likewise be combined to
make small rooms look big. Or the same effect
may be gained, where several rooms open Uito each
other, by having each room papered precisely like
the others.
Many people already are aware of these and
other facts in "color magic." But many have
never given the subject any thought T would sug
gest that they begin to study it, as a means of en
hancing both their personal appearance and the at
tractiveness of their homes.
Editors proceed to order spring and trammer
fiction in the optimistic belief that winter will not
last always.