_•_

IS THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
INSINCERE?

BY
JOSEPH S. AUERBACH
OF THE NEW YORK BAR

REPRINTED FROM "THE NORTH
AMERICAN REVIEW" FOR NOVEMBER, 1904

(Eo144C tetofoi'. Of

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

AH

(Reprinted from The North American Review)

- Coj>y«8&]!f>1004, by the
'idBim3$iffljj$ Publlshini
All Rights Reserved

North AmeifcaJ»a^|p Publishing Company

IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
BY JOSEPH S. AUEEBACH.

Justly or unjustly, there are laid at the door of the present
Republican Administration serious charges of an arbitrary exer
cise of power, of the usurpation by the Executive of legislative
functions, of unconstitutional acts, and of a general tendency not
alone toward a centralization of power in the general Government
at Washington, but toward a personalization of government in
Mr. Roosevelt.
To all these charges a denial is interposed; and it is asserted
with great frequency and emphasis by those high in the councils
and confidence of the Republican Party, and by the President
himself, that the Democratic Party in making these charges, and
in its present appeal for popular support, is guilty of insincerity.
It remains with the great body of voters, who are not partisans
from . interest or habit, and whose support is essential to the suc
cess of either candidate, to pass upon these grave issues, submitted
to them as, to a great and impartial jury for their verdict.
As to the great, far-reaching significance of that verdict .there
should be no misapprehension.
If favorable to the Republican Party, it will be an approval, or
at least a condonation, of acts which have been the subject of so
much, heated discussion for the past few months, and a deliberate
acquiescence in the policy of that party, carried out through its
accidental but accredited representative.
The acts of the agent, even if unauthorized and in excess of his
delegated powers, will then have been ratified by the principal,
and that principal will no longer be the Republican Party, but
the American People.
The momentous question is whether we are prepared for that
kind of an endorsement of the Republican Party.

4 18 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
It may be that we have come to a pass where such a dis
tinct departure from precedents which have heretofore been our
guide is defensible; but we need a good deal more to bring this
home to us as a conviction than the specious insistence that a con
demnation of the acts complained of will necessarily mean their
undoing. No such argument is entitled to serious consideration. On the
contrary, under principles controlling with our courts and sanc
tioned by general usage, if rights have vested and rules of prop
erty, or even of conduct, have been established under acts inde
fensible in themselves but done with apparent authority, it may
be that the acts in whole or in part must stand. The questions,
however, whether such acts shall stand because these rights have
vested and these rules have been established, or whether they shall
stand as accepted precedents because the acts are right and de
fensible in themselves, give rise to wholly different answers.
Even if every one of such acts must stand, the issue as to the
character of these acts is not a dead, but a living, issue; for the
issue then is not the thing done, but the principle pursuant to
which it was done. Unless the Republican Party can so success
fully defend its acts that the justification for its conduct is com
plete, without recourse to the argument as to the embarrassment
which might follow a refusal to endorse these acts, then that party
is not entitled to our support.
The just and the only legitimate method of applying the test of
approval or disapproval to these acts is to consider what the
people of the United States would do if Mr. Roosevelt were seek
ing election on a platform which set forth as part of its policy an
intention to carry out, precisely as they were carried out, all those
acts of which grave complaint is now made.
It is certain that Mr. Roosevelt cannot fairly object to this
test, and it is equally certain that, in this way, we shall view these
acts in a new and a rather startling light.
Let us, at the outset, fix upon the proper, justifiable methods
for conducting such an inquiry.
We are not to be misled by the plausible claim that, at most,
the departure from law and tradition is apparently insignificant.
In the consideration of an unconstitutional or an indefensible act
by an Executive or by a Legislature, the question is not what
harm it may do, or how grave a departure from constitutional

18 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN SINCERE? 5
principles or accepted tradition and precedent it may be, nor what
are the motives which prompted the departure.
The question is whether there is any departure at all.
In our courts of law, invalid testamentary trusts, under statutes
relating to the disposition of property, are not confined to those
cases where it is apparent that the provisions must offend against
the statute. The possibility of such a result is sufficient. So,
also, our courts, finding a contracting party interested in the
subject-matter of his trust, permit neither court nor jury to con
sider the transaction from the standpoint of its resulting injury
or benefit. They condemn the transaction wherever the prohibited
relation is disclosed.
Much more is great caution to be observed where the question
under consideration is one involving the good faith of a nation,
or the slightest assumption by an Executive of unconstitutional
powers, or an inclination on his part to disregard constitutional
limitations. The extent or degree of the offence is not of con
trolling moment. That it exists at all is sufficient to call for
instant condemnation.
An occasion once arose where the President of the United
States had undertaken merely to take from one of the Cabinet offi
cers of the Government the right of determining where the public
money should be deposited, and to exercise that function himself.
Webster then uttered these words :
" It was strongly and forcibly urged, yesterday, by the honorable mem
ber from South Carolina, that the true and only mode of preserving any
balance of power in mixed governments is to keep an exact balance. This
is very true, and to this end encroachments must be resisted at the first
step. The question is, therefore, whether, upon the true principles of the
Constitution, this exercise of power by the President can be justified.
Whether the consequences be prejudicial or not, if there be an illegal
exercise of power it is to be resisted in the proper manner. Even if no
harm or inconvenience results from transgressing the boundary, the in
trusion is not to be suffered to pass unnoticed. Every encroachment,
great or small, is important enough to awaken the attention of those
who are entrusted with the preservation of a constitutional government.
We are not to wait till great public mischiefs come, till the government
is overthrown, or liberty itself put into extreme jeopardy. We should
not be worthy sons of our fathers were we so to regard great questions
affecting the general feeling. Those fathers accomplished the Revolution
on a strict question of principle. The Parliament of Great Britain assert
ed a right to tax the Colonies in all cases whatsoever; and it was pre-

6 IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
cisely on this question that they made the Revolution turn. The amount
of taxation was trifling, but the claim itself was inconsistent with liberty;
and that was, in their eyes, enough. It was against the recital of an Act
of Parliament, rather than against any suffering under its enactments,
that they took up arms. They went to war against a preamble. They
fought seven years against a declaration. They poured out their treasures
and their blood like water, in a contest against an assertion which those
less sagacious and not so well schooled in the principles of civil liberty
would have regarded as barren phraseology or mere parade of words.
They saw in the claim of the British Parliament a seminal principle of
mischief, the germ of unjust power; they detected it, dragged it forth
from underneath its plausible disguises, struck at it; nor did it elude
either their steady eye or their well-directed blow till they had extirpated
it and destroyed it to the smallest fibre. On this question of principle,
while actual suffering was yet afar off, they raised their flag against
the Power to which, for purposes of foreign conquest and subrogation,
Rome, in the height of her glory, is not to be compared; a Power which
is dotted over the surface of the whole globe, with her possessions and
military posts, whose morning drum-beat, following the sun, and keep
ing company with the hours, circles the earth with one continuous and
unbroken strain of the martial airs of England.
" The necessity of holding strictly to the principles upon which free
governments are constructed, and to those precise lines which fix the
partitions of power between different branches, is as plain, if not as
cogent, as that of resisting, as our fathers did, the strides of the parent
¦ country against the rights of the Colonies ; because, whether the power
which exceeds . its just limits be foreign or domestic, whether it be the
encroachment of all branches on the rights of the people, or that of one
branch on the rights of others, in either case the balanced and well-
adjusted machinery of free government is disturbed, and, if the de
rangement go on, the whole system must fall."
Nor, again, are we to be held to any strict requirement of proof
as to the motives for such acts.
Motives are elusive, and, whether the acts were committed from
good or from wrong motives is not a question of first importance.
The Presidency of the United States is a trusteeship held for its
beneficiary — the people of the United States. The rules laid
down for the guidance of the Trustee are found in the Constitu
tion, in our statutes, in the decisions of our courts and in prece
dents established by a long course of national conduct. No one
but the beneficiary has given, or could give, to the Trustee a
license to depart from these rules. The President does not create
these rules — he obeys them. It may have been the intention of the
President — and we should be prepared to concede much to one

IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE? 7
of his high character — to do justice always ; but the people of this
country cannot be expected to acquiesce in the attempt of the
Executive to make laws, however just, rather than to execute laws
as they exist, any more than they would be content that courts of
law should discard all precedents, and attempt to render decisions
according to some freshly devised theory of right and wrong, as
each case arose for decision.
We are free, in matters such as are now under discussion, to
rest our final judgment on a foundation much less substantial
than that of established proof of facts. The present inquiry is
not similar to a trial in a court of law. It may be likened rather
to the proceedings of an investigating committee of a legislature,
where impressions, at times even hearsay, and a general course of
conduct are all properly to be taken into consideration and given
due weight.
Only in this case all these conditions are much more applicable,
for the question at issue is what hereafter shall be our standards
for national conduct, and the investigating committee is the
American People.
We are to determine whether the Republican Party is entitled
to our endorsement in much the same way in which we come to a
conclusion as to the character of an individual.
Prom a consideration of these acts, not as isolated or unrelated,
but in association with other acts, and from the character of the
defence interposed, we are to conclude whether the charges against
the Administration of Mr. Roosevelt are just.
We must bear in mind that the acts complained of find their
source and inspiration and their defence in the doctrine of central
ization, which is .the creed of the Republican Party, and that the
personalization of government is the natural but the dangerous
offspring of centralization. The imperceptible but resistless drift
of legislation for which the Republican Party is responsible,
and of much judicial interpretation of that legislation and of the
Constitution itself, promoted and sanctioned by Republican
doctrine, has to-day stripped the several States of much of their
individuality, so that in some vital essentials they are no longer
States, but mere Boroughs.
Chief-Justice Marshall, a man whose views were not always in
accord with those of Jefferson, the founder and apostle of Democ
racy, said;

8 IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
" No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking
down the lines which separate the States and of compounding the people
into one common mass."
If we are prepared to stand idly by and see, not dreamers but
men, active, aggressive, in the control of a great party, and of the
machinery of government, break down these lines, then we have
enthroned new leaders and exalted wholly new standards.
Nor are we to be turned aside from an investigation of these
questions by a recital of past shortcomings of the Democratic
Party. We are mot dealing with offences of either party, other than
those which are of vital import in this election. The Democratic
Party has often come short of its high purposes; it has disap
pointed its followers and forfeited their support. But it has re
canted its errors; it has returned to its old allegiance, and has
consecrated itself anew to its old articles of faith. Whether it is
sincere in this must be gathered largely from what it has to say
as to the conduct of the Republican Party during the past few
years, and from the kind of candidate it has offered for the
suffrages of the American People.
And, finally and above all, in such an inquiry we are to resolve
all doubts not in favor of the Republican Party or of Mr. Roose
velt, but of ihe Nation.
In the light of these suggestions, let us apply the test suggested
and inquire briefly whether, if it were now proposed by the Re
publican Party to pursue the course it has adopted and to commit
the acts now complained of, we should give or withhold our ap
proval. Let us suppose, therefore, that the announced intention of the
Republican Party in its platform were, if successful in this can
vass: That the President of the United States would, after a refusal
by Congress to pass a pension law, put into force Pension Order
No. 78, which was a substitute for such legislation;
That the party should announce that over remote territorial
possessions, which were acquired and which can be held only by a
vast navy, our flag was to float for the protection of subjects
against internal disorder, and not as a symbol of American
citizenship ;
That the building of the Panama Canal was to be compassed

IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE? g
by a resort to practices which, it would not be difficult to establish,
would involve a breach of faith with another nation, coupled with
an arbitrary unconstitutional act ;
That the President would devise the new political expedient of
a constructive recess of Congress to secure, out of all order of
legitimate preferment, the appointment of a friend to a major-
generalship of the United States Army ;
That he would in a series of addresses throughout this country
advocate an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
that would, if adopted, operate to so obliterate State lines, that the
" compounding of the people into one common mass " would be
seriously threatened ;
That we were to be treated to episodes of the " We want either
Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead " order ; and that we were to have
our navy move from point to point, not for display or discipline,
but for threatened action ;
That weak but independent nations were to be lectured and
threatened, as by a pedagogue armed to the teeth, about their man
ners and their debts, in language like the following used by Mr.
Roosevelt :
" Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon
our hearty friendliness. If - nation shows that it knows how to act with
decency in industrial and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its
obligations, then it need fear no interference from the United States.
Brutal wrong-doing or an impotence which results in the general loosen
ing of the ties of civilized soeiety may finally require intervention by
some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the United States
cannot ignore its duty;"
That we were thus to see the Monroe Doctrine evolved into
a new doctrine that is entitled in all justice to be baptized the
Roosevelt Doctrine ;
And that, generally, a centralized, a personalized, and a kind of
vi et armis theory of government was to be set up for our worship ;
What, under such conditions, would the people do at this Elec
tion? Unless this Administration can stand this test of its acts —
disassociated wholly from any consideration of the inadvisability
or impracticability of undoing what has been done — it must be
condemned, and condemned utterly.
The limitations of a magazine article forbid anything like an

10 18 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
extended discussion of these questions. The answer to some is
apparent without discussion. The answer to others is equally
apparent if we trace these acts to their source and inspiration, in
the chief article of faith of the Republican Party, the centraliza
tion of government; for, from the centralization of government,
it is only one and a very short step to the personalization of gov
ernment, and from the latter the step is imperceptible to a Gov
ernment which shall act upon personal caprice and be on the
borderland, and perhaps within the province, of indifference to
all law and precedent.
Though the scheme was immature and died in birth, nothing
could better illustrate the way in which the Constitution is re
garded by Mr. Roosevelt than what he did, a year or two ago, in
the matter of a proposed amendment to the Constitution, advo
cated by him, not once, but in a series of speeches throughout the
country. In order that there should be centred in Washington a control
over large corporations, Mr. Roosevelt proposed and advocated,
over and over again, an amendment to the Constitution on the
ground that:
" Our Constitution was framed when the economic conditions were so
different that each State could easily be left to handle the corporations
as it saw fit."
With the evil which might result from any such interpretation
of the Constitution the evil, however great it may be, of large cor
porations is not to be compared.
To the United States Constitution we look as the source of
authority and power, and, not finding them there, they belong to
the States, and not to Congress, nor to the President. Under any
other interpretation the whole theory of the Constitution would be
reversed, for the Constitution would thus be given the force and
effect of a State Constitution, which is looked to for prohibitions
upon legislative and executive action. From this the step is easy,
not alone to the promulgation of immature schemes for reshaping
and tinkering with the Constitution, but also to an interpretation
which may be the basis for even lawlessness.
The end of Mr. Roosevelt's plan was to give a definite control,
as he expressed it, to " Some Sovereign " over our large corpora
tions, and therefore over the great bulk of our commercial transac
tions; the means by which he proposed to carry out his plan was

IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE? \\
a scheme, substantially, to obliterate State lines. The erroneous
theory upon which the amendment was sought to be justified was,
that when the Constitution was framed, each State was in a posi
tion where it could easily be " left to handle " the corporations
within its limits as it saw fit. But no one " left " anything to the
States. On the contrary, the powers of the Federal Government
represent simply the sum total of the concessions from the several
States. The States retained what they did not part with. This is
not a technical and over-refined distinction. It is fundamental,
and on it rests one of the underlying principles of construction
of the Constitution, and by the express language of the Constitu
tion itself, among its first amendments, it was provided that :
" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
There has been extended debate concerning the Pension Order
of Mr. Roosevelt, but much of it is irrelevant. Comparatively, the
question as to how much money the Pension Order takes from the
Treasury of the United States is not of such great concern; the
question of importance is how much has it taken away from the
constitutional foundation on which this Government rests. A
reference to any precedent set by Mr. Cleveland or by Mr. McKin-
ley is of little moment, because the conditions were different. But
assume that they were in part similar, they did not act immediately
prior to a political convention at which either was a candidate, nor
by a usurpation of the legislative function, when the whole sub
ject was under consideration by Congress. There were at least
four pension bills pending in Congress — three or more in the
House of Representatives and one in the Senate — when this order
was promulgated. All of these bills were of similar import and
one of them was in effect the same as the Pension Order. The
mere pendency of such bills was evidence that, in the opinion of
Congress, legislation was essential to authorize the act which the
order of Mr. Roosevelt sought to accomplish.
The proposed legislation failed of enactment. Then the Presi
dent took the matter into his own hands, and authorized or ap
proved the order which operated as having the effect of a law
which Congress had declined to enact.
If a corporation, having sought and having failed to secure
legislative authority for the carrying out of some corporate pur-

12 18 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
pose, thereupon lawlessly puts its scheme into effect, could it
reasonably look for anything but condemnation of its course?
Much less can the President expect to escape like condemnation,
for he is violating the plain letter of the Constitution, no matter
what his motive may have been. The question fairly to-day before
the voters of the United States is : Suppose the candidate of the
Republican Party should announce that, if elected to the Presi
dency, he would, in the event that certain pension bills in Con
gress failed of passage, authorize or sanction and then defend
the issue of an order which was to have all the force and effect
of a legislative act.
Would the people of the United States, in the face of such a
declaration, elect Mr. Roosevelt? There is no middle ground.
Mr. Roosevelt's defence cannot stop short of such an endorsement.
If we should not be prepared to authorize in advance such a per
formance, Mr. Roosevelt does not deserve election, simply because
the revocation of the order might now operate as an injury to
many people entitled to the lasting gratitude and consideration
of the nation.
How can the act be regarded as being other than what it was
termed in the Senate of the United States, " a piece of Executive
Legislation " ?
It was stated, too, in the Senate, with much emphasis and with
equal truth, that the order was taken bodily from the Bill, and
was issued when it became evident that the Bill was not likely to
become a law. And it was issued on the eve of a Presidential
convention at which Mr. Roosevelt was a candidate for nomination.
The order reads :
" Ordered, ( 1 ) In the adjudication of pension claims under said act of
June 27th, 1890, as amended, it shall be taken and considered as an
evidential fact, if the contrary does not appear, and if all other legal
requirements are properly met, that when a claimant has passed the age
of 62 years he is disabled one-half in ability to perform manual labor,
and is entitled to be rated at $6 per month; after 65 years, at $8 per
month; after 68 years, at $10 per month, and after 70 years, at $12 per
month." One of the pending Bills reads as follows :
" That every officer or enlisted man in the Army or Navy of the United
States coming within the provisions of the second section of the act of
June 27th, 1890, as amended by the act of May 9th, 1900, who is or may
become 62 years of age shall be pensioned under said acts at $6 per

IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE? 13
month, and every one who is or may become 65 years Of age shall be
pensioned at $8 per month; those who are or may become 68 years of
age shall be pensioned at $10 per month, and those who are or who may
become 70 years of age shall be pensioned at $12 per month."
An attempted reply in part is that Judge Parker has announced
that, if elected, he will recall the order and will favor the enact
ment of an old-age pension law, which will, it is claimed, make a
drain upon the Treasury greater than that brought about by Mr.
Roosevelt's act. But this is no reply. Judge Parker is advo
cating a law to be passed by Congress ; he is not proposing to usurp
the province of Congress. The people of the United' States can
afford to pay many millions of dollars annually to those who de
fended the Union. They can afford to pay no tribute to an uncon
stitutional act or to an exhibition of arbitrariness and" a defiance
of public opinion and of the legislative will. The President of
the United States is expected to be the servant of the people, — not
their master.
There may have been a great pressure upon the Administra
tion to do what it did, and its enthusiasm, and not alone its
political interests, may have run with the pressure, but we are
not required to be content with an Administration which is " the
slave of circumstance and impulse."
To the extent that rights may be said to have vested under such
an order we must, under the familiar principle of law to which
we have referred, see that, in setting the matter right, it be done
without prejudice to those who might be embarrassed by the
change. To that end a law substantially requisite to replace an
unlawful order is defensible, »even though the law involves the
outgo of more money from the Treasury than would have been-
necessary but for the promulgation of the order.
Suppose, again, that the Republican Party should announce in
its platform that it intended to secure the right to build the
Panama Canal in the way in which that project has been begun.
Then the question would be, not " What are you going to do about
it, now that the act has been committed ?" but " What will you do
by way of conferring original authority for the act?"
It would then be set forth in the platform of the Republican
Party, that its candidate for President of the United States, if
elected, would seek to increase our commercial prosperity by pro
moting the building of the Panama Canal, if possible, by treaty

14 18 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
with Colombia ; that, if he failed in this, he would refuse to obey
the Spooner Act, which enjoined his then entering upon negotia
tions for the construction of the Nicaragua Canal; that if, in
the course of the negotiations with Colombia, that part of Co
lombia within which is included the Panama route should re
volt, he would forthwith recognize the insurgents as a Republic,
and that, if Colombia should seek to repossess itself of the terri
tory which had been thus torn from its rightful owner, the Presi
dent of the United States, under the guise and pretence — for it is
nothing else — of keeping a covenant of peace under a treaty to
the rights of which Colombia had succeeded, would by threat
and force of amis, and, by a bold usurpation of authority vested
only in Congress, to all intents and purposes declare war upon Co
lombia and forbid that attempt ; that the Republican Party would
thereupon put a premium of $10,000,000 upon rebellion, by a
payment of that sum to a band, of insurgents; and, lastly, and
worst of all, that this course toward a weak sister nation would be
defended, on the ground that such nation was obdurate and un
reasonable, and that by any other course the construction of the
inter-ocean waterway would have been long postponed.
Would the people then elect Mr. Roosevelt upon such an issue ?
Would they vote for that kind of a canal? Would they vote to
have the Constitution overriden and war declared, not by Con
gress, but as completely by the caprice of a President as it is by
that of any ruler on the Continent of Europe, hedged in by no
constitutional restraint ? This is no idle academic question before
us. The gravity of the issue cannot be exaggerated. If the Amer
ican People are not prepared to go so far as to say they would now
confer original authority for such a defiance of the Constitution,
then the candidate of the party responsible for this act is not en
titled to be elected simply because the act cannot be wholly undone.
It is said that we did not promote the rebellion in Panama. The
disclaimer of preliminary information on the subject by the Ad
ministration is confined to the statement by the President in his
report to Congress, in January, 1904, that, save for certain offi
cial information and reports accompanying the message,
" no one connected with this Government had any previous knowledge
of the revolution, except such as was accessible to any person of ordinary
intelligence who read the newspapers and kept up a current acquaint
ance with public affairs."

IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE? 15
Now there is brought to light a letter, written on October 10,
1903, at the White House, to a friend, in which, among other
things, Mr. Roosevelt said :
" I cast aside the proposition made at this time to foment the seces
sion of Panama. Whatever other governments can do, the United States
cannot go into the securing, by such underhand means, the cession."
Who made the proposition thus cast aside, and under what
auspices was it made ? What was the suggestion as to co-operation
by us in promoting the secession of Panama, and what was to be
the consideration to us? These are pertinent questions, and will,
perhaps, have to be answered some day.
But the immediate questions are, why was there not laid before
Congress all the information, or at least as much of it as was com
municated to a friend, concerning this political intrigue, to which
it now appears we were a proposed party? Who authorized
the President of the United States, however much he may regard
himself as the impersonation of the Government, to withhold in
formation upon a subject concerning which he was presumably
making a complete communication to Congress? On what the
ory did he regard himself as authorized to argue, and not in duty
bound to state, the case just as it was ?
Such a course may be justified elsewhere, but we are of the
view that it will not be long tolerated in this country. Humil
iating, indeed, must be the reading of these two statements, not
alone to those who are friendly, but to- those who are opposed to
Mr. Roosevelt. The reading is alarming, too, as an indication of
many things attempted to be pointed out in this article.
When some advocate shall make it appear that these two conflict
ing statements can be reconciled and that Mr. Roosevelt dealt in
entire candor with Congress, he will earn the lasting gratitude of
the American people. As the case now stands, however, it does not
seem likely that any such fee can come out of this miserable mess.
There is an attempted defence of this Panama affair by Mr.
Roosevelt and his supporters. That of Mr. Roosevelt is, perhaps,
the best. He says in his letter of acceptance:
" Our opponents can criticise what we did in Panama only on condi
tion of misstating what was done. The Administration behaved
throughout not only with good faith, but with extraordinary patience
and large generosity toward those with whom it dealt. It was also
mindful of American interests. It acted in strict compliance with the

lg IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
law passed by Congress. Had not Panama been promptly recognized,
and the transit across the Isthmus kept open, in accordance with our
treaty rights and obligations, there would have ensued endless guerilla
warfare and possibly foreign complications; while all chance of build
ing the canal would have been deferred, certainly for years, perhaps for
a generation or more."
We are entitled to dismiss the statement that the Administra
tion behaved throughout with extraordinary patience and large
generosity toward those with whom it dealt, with the simple com
ment that the patience was of a wholly novel sort, true patience
bearing to it about the same relation that sense bears to non
sense; and that the generosity seems to have been generosity
only to stockholders in a canal company which was insolvent, and
toward insurgents who were successful, if not through our
alliance, at least by our connivance. That the Administration was
not mindful of American interests is clear, for those interests
could not best be subserved by the commission of a breach of na
tional faith. Of course, it did not act in strict compliance with
the law passed by Congress, because that law is mandatory in re
quiring the President to enter upon negotiations for the construc
tion of the Nicaragua Canal if the Panama route could not be
secured within a reasonable time — by treaty, be it remembered,
and not by profit-sharing in a rebellion.
The fact that Mr. Roosevelt ignores this mandate and pleads
that, by any course other than that adopted by him, the building
of the canal would have been indefinitely deferred indicates the ex
tremity to which he is obliged to resort in an attempt to justify
his course.
The conjecture that guerilla warfare and possibly foreign com
plications would have ensued, but for the recognition of this one-
day-old republic, is without justification. In fact, the more that
light is let in upon this despicable affair — and light is being let
in altogether too rapidly for the Republican peace of mind, one
might conclude — the more the presumption grows into a convic
tion that Colombia, if not overawed by us, the Guarantor of her
Sovereignty over Panama, would forthwith have suppressed that
petty plot called, only by courtesy, a rebellion.
If we are going to conjecture as to what things might have
happened if we had failed to act as we did, with how much more
propriety may we not conjecture what another President may do,
acting from purely evil motives — which we must all be prepared to

IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE? \J
concede did not control Mr. Roosevelt — if this precedent be ap
proved by a vote of the American people !
The fact is that the whole defence for Mr. Roosevelt of the
Panama Canal episode falls to the ground. It is claimed by his
supporters that, by our Treaty with New Granada, we were bound
to do, or at least were justified in doing, what we did.
The claim cannot be sustained. The Treaty imposed reciprocal
obligations upon the two contracting parties.
On the one hand, New Granada guaranteed to the United
States the right to enjoy the ports of New Granada as they were
enjoyed by her citizens; and, also,
" that right of way or transit across the Isthmus of Panama upon any
modes of communication that now exist or that may hereafter be con
structed, shall be open and free to the government and citizens of the
United States; and for transportation of any articles of produce, manu
facture or merchandise of lawful commerce belonging to the citizens
of the United States, upon the same terms as to the citizens of New
Granada." On the other hand,
" The United States guarantee positively and efficaciously to New
Granada by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality of the before-
mentioned Isthmus, with the view that free transit from the one to
the other sea may not be interrupted or embarrassed in any future time
while this Treaty exists; and in consequence the United States also
guarantee, in the same manner, the rights of sovereignty and property
which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory."
To the rights and obligations of New Granada, the United
States of Colombia, and subsequently the Republic of Colombia,
succeeded. The regularity of this succession and the sovereignty
of the two republics were officially recognized by us in our
diplomatic relations with them; two or more treaties were
made and ratified between us and the United States of Colombia,
and at least one was made and ratified between us and the Repub
lic of Colombia, prior to the ill-fated Hay-Herran treaty. By a
recognition of the new Republic of Panama and by forbidding* the
recovery by Colombia of the territory in revolt that we by treaty
were bound to aid and not to obstruct, we prevented Colombia
from fulfilling her guaranty to us. Then, by a claim that Colom
bia had not kept her part of the bargain, made impossible by our
conduct, we repudiated our part of the treaty, which was to up
hold the sovereignty of Colombia. We not only did all this, but,

18 IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
by the precipitate recognition of the so-called Republic of Panama,
we pursued a course which, if it had been adopted by foreign gov
ernments toward us in the time of the Civil War, might have made
unsuccessful our effort to preserve the Union.
Mr. Root, in his defence of the Panama Canal incident, speaks of
'' the seizure by Panama of the opportunity to renew her oft-re
peated effort to throw off the hateful and oppressive yoke of Co
lombia." But who set us up as judges to determine that the yoke
of Colombia was hateful and oppressive? We recognized her
sovereignty over Panama, and, however hateful and oppressive
.the yoke may have been, there can be no fair question that we
should not have been guilty of a precipitate recognition of Pana
ma but for the fact that we had in prospect the construction of
the Canal. The question, however, cannot be discussed from any
academic standpoint. We were under agreement not to do as we
did, for the reason that we had undertaken by solemn treaty to
guarantee the sovereignty of Colombia over Panama.
The following is the account of our stewardship as a Guarantor
of Sovereignty. On the third of November, 1903, occurred the
"uprising with no bloodshed" consisting of the arrest of two
Colombian officers. Four days thereafter, we in the interval, and
as matter of fact, before the uprising, having forbidden the move
ment of Colombian troops across the isthmus or any other hostile
action by Colombia, three persons — " the dauntless Three " per
haps, who were about as much entitled to speak for a real
republic as the three tailors of Tooley Street were entitled
to petition Parliament as " We the people of England " —
communicated by cable to the United States that the new
Republic of Panama had been born. Recognition by us of the
Republic took place on the day following, by this announcement,
" The people of Panama, by an apparently unanimous movement,
dissolved their political connection with the Republic of Colombia,
and resumed their independence, and having adopted a Govern
ment of their own, republican in form, with which the Government
of the United States has entered into relations, the President of
the United States, in accordance with the ties of friendship which
have so long and so happily existed between the respective nations,
most earnestly commends to the Governments of Colombia and of
Panama the peaceful and equitable settlement of all questions at
issue between them. He holds that he is bound, not merely by

IS THET DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE? lg
treaty obligations, but by the interests of civilization, to see that
the peaceful traffic of the world across the Isthmus of Panama
shall not longer be disturbed by a constant succession of un
necessary and wasteful civil wars."
The farce was thus complete.
" Do our opponents," flippantly asks Mr. Roosevelt in his letter
of acceptance, " grudge the fifty millions paid for the Panama
Canal ?" No, perhaps not, but they do begrudge the stain which
it has put upon our national honor, and they believe that in this
they speak, not for the Democratic Party, but for the American
People. We are told by Mr. Hay, in his panegyric on Mr. Roosevelt, that
" in times of doubt and difficulty the thought oftenest in his heart
is ' What in such a case would Lincoln have done ?' " The source
of the trouble then must be that few cases of doubt and difficulty
ever present themselves to Mr. Roosevelt when bent upon the
accomplishment of his purpose, inasmuch as evidence of any
such heart referendum is so rarely apparent in his political
life. Clearly, in the spoliation of Colombia there seems to have been
no " doubt or difficulty " ; nor, to complete the alliteration, was
there any delay.
What a travesty it all is ! To intimate even that Lincoln, with
his infinite charity and forbearance, and with his deep religious
devotion to principle and his subordination of self, would, under
like conditions, not only without the authority, but against the
mandate of a statute and of the Constitution, have done what Mr.
Roosevelt did to Colombia, and in other ways would have made
history as Mr. Roosevelt has made history, comes perilously near
being a libel upon our martyred dead.
In a noted case before the Supreme Court of the United States,
the question at issue was the right of maintenance of an action of
ejectment against property held for the account of the United
States. In the course of the argument, one of the Justices of the
Court, in order to emphasize his intimation that such an action
should not be maintained, asked of the counsel what his view
would be where a plaintiff should be successful in a similar action
instituted to recover Government land used for a lighthouse,
which would thereby be dismantled.
The answer of the counsel was :

20 18 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
" Better that the lighthouse never should be lighted than that the
Light of the Law should be extinguished."
On the eve of the great battle of Plassey, which was to determine
the question of the possession of India by the English nation,
Omichund, an ally, was about to play the British false. He was
bribed by Lord Clive to remain true, and the understanding was
to be set down in a treaty which Omichund supposed to have been
signed by representatives of the English nation. The paper de
livered to him was a substituted paper, and even that paper did
not bear the signature it purported to bear. The biographer of
Clive sought to defend it. Concerning the defence, Macaulay says :
" We should not think it necessary to offer any remarks for the pur
pose of directing the judgment of our readers with respect to this trans
action, had not Sir John Malcolm undertaken to defend it in all "its parts.
He regrets, indeed, that it was necessary to employ means so liable to
abuse as forgery; but he will not admit that any blame attaches to those
who deceived the deceiver. He thinks that the English were not bound
to keep faith with one who kept no faith with them, and that, if they
had fulfilled their engagements with the wily Bengalee, so signal an
example of successful treason would have produced a crowd of imitators.
Now, we will not discuss this point on any rigid principles of morality.
Indeed it is quite unnecessary to do so. For, looking at the question as
a question of expediency in the lowest sense of the word, and using no
arguments but such as Machiavelli might have employed in his confer
ences with Borgia, we are convinced that Clive was altogether in the
wrong, and that he committed, not merely a crime, but a blunder. That
honesty is the best policy is a maxim which we firmly believe to be gen
erally correct, even with respect to the temporal interest of individuals;
but with respect to societies, the rule is subject to still fewer excep
tions, and that for this reason, that the life of societies is longer than
the life of individuals. It is possible to mention men who have owed
great worldly prosperity to breaches of private faith ; but we doubt
whether it be possible to mention a state which has, on the whole, been
a gainer by a breach of public faith."
The Republic of Colombia had failed, it is asserted, to act in a
spirit of fairness toward our Government. Though there is no
complete proof of this, suppose it be conceded. Still, Colombia
owed us no obligation to accept the treaty we proposed, fair though
it may have been. Omichund, owing the English nation the obliga
tions of an ally, was treacherous on the eve of battle ; yet treachery
to him has been condemned. If Macaulay be right — and who will
have the hardihood to say that he is wrong? — how much less
justification was there for our action toward Colombia, even

IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN8INCERE? 21
though that weaker nation was contumacious and was not acting
as we thought would best enable us to promote the construction
of a means of communication perhaps needed by us and by the
whole world?
It is said by the Psalmist that he shall dwell in the tabernacle
of the Lord and shall rest upon His holy hill and shall never fall,
who among other things " hath not done evil to his neighbor, and
hath not slandered his neighbor; and that sweareth unto his neigh
bor and disappointeth him not, though it were to his own hind
rance." And whether we like to recognize it or not, we have come
short of the standard of the Psalmist, for we profited by, even if
we did not promote, a rebellion by which Colombia was stripped of
her possessions ; we set up an unworthy attack upon that nation as
a justification and defence for the course we had pursued; and,
more than all, we broke a solemn treaty obligation, for our com
mercial advantage.
To the extent that this wrong can be righted, reparation should,
after full investigation, be made to the Republic of Colombia
freely and promptly, if only for the reason, selfish though it be —
though there are other reasons — that the act shall not serve as an
accepted precedent, and that one stain upon the page of our history
may be blotted out forever.
The danger in all such acts is not alone in themselves. Unless
such an act be condemned, then, under the rule of law to which
we have referred, it becomes a precedent for future misconduct,
and whether it be right or wrong it may bind us as a people to the
extent that rights have vested and rules of property and of con
duct have become established under it ; and it is to be remembered
as a warning that it is rarely in great situations like these that
such rights do not vest, and such rules do not become established.
Great danger, too, lurks in the condonation of such an act, for
it is an accepted law of ethics that punishment in the Court of
Conscience, unlike that in Courts of Law, lessens with each re
peated and unrebuked offence; and it should be a matter of grave
concern, that we do not deaden our sensibilities as a people to that
which makes for righteous, national conduct.
The whole Panama incident is defensible only as an act of ex
pediency, and that defence is always demurrable when the charge
is of a violation of the honor and the good faith of a State.
It is not a bright page in American history and never can be.

22 18 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
No doubt, it was desirable to secure an interocean waterway, but
it would have been better that vessels should round the Cape until
the end of time than that we, for any purpose, should have short
ened the route by the practices with which we stand charged.
When Grover Cleveland, as Governor of the State of New York,
was called upon to consider a bill passed by the Legislature re
ducing the fares on the Elevated Railroad, he vetoed a popular
measure because his courage and adherence to principle, of which
this action was but one of many manifestations, forbade him to
accept expediency as his guide. He said :
" But we have specially in our keeping the honor and good faith of a
great State, and we should see to it that no suspicion attaches, through
any act of ours, to the fair fame of the commonwealth. The State should
not only be strictly just but scrupulously fair, and in its relations to the
citizens every legal and moral obligation should be recognized. . . .
" The experiences of other States teach us that we must keep within
the limits of law and good faith, lest in the end we bring upon the very
people whom we seek to benefit and protect a hardship which must surely
follow when these limits are ignored."
As we have attempted to point out, the other acts of the Repub
lican Party referred to, though differing in degree, are of common
origin with those discussed, and are all manifestations of a de
termination on the part of the Republican Party to go forward
with its purposes, if deemed expedient, regardless of means or
of precedents laid down for our guidance, to be as mindful of the
business of other people as we are of our own; to rule and not
to serve the people.
It remains only to add this commentary as to the policy and con
duct of that party.
The Democratic Party stands opposed to these acts. It insists
that our national faith shall be kept at all times. It insists that
the tariff shall be reconstructed so that injustice to the many shall
not continue to be committed for the benefit of the few, and that
an artificial income, abnormally large, shall not afford the basis
or the incitement for profligate expenditures. It insists that we
shall have a Government of peace as well as prosperity. It in
sists that, as we grow great and powerful, we shall be considerate
to all nations. It insists that States are safe only so long as prin
ciples hold sway, even though conduct may at times fall short of
the ideals which these principles enjoin ; and it insists that we shall
not, by our indifference or by our approval of or acquiescence in

IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE? 23
wrong acts, permit to be set up in this country false gods for
worship. If this be insincerity, then, clearly, insincerity is synonymous
with love of country.
The Democratic Party insists that we have been burdened by
the fortunes of war with the execution of a great trust in the
Philippines, and not with the continued possession of a great terri
tory — made possible only by a formidable navy, which it is
now proposed to expand indefinitely — and it insists that to
discharge that trust and hand back these lands to its inhabitants,
free and independent, under conditions that will insure to us al
ways a dominating moral and commercial influence there, involves
no such nonsense as hauling down the flag of our country in dis
honor; but.it insists that, when that day of rejoicing shall have
come to the Philippines, our flag for the first time will be raised
there in triumph. It insists that for us, in the promotion of any
world-wide scheme or policy, to hold possession of this territory
for one moment beyond the time when its citizens are entitled to
receive it, would be no more justifiable than would be the action
of a trustee who might appropriate funds of which he was not the
beneficiary, but the mere temporary custodian.
It insists that the duty of doing prompt and full justice to the
people of the Philippines can be more safely entrusted to the
Democratic Party, which regards our occupation of that territory
as a misfortune, rather than to the Republican Party, which
asserts that we are entitled to claim over it a rightful ownership.
Nor, in insisting that we shall thus limit our possession of terri
tory, is the Democratic Party called upon to repudiate the doctrine
of its founder, and to call in question the wisdom of the Louisiana
Purchase; for Jefferson, in his correspondence, with Madison,
maintained that nothing should ever be accepted by us in the way
of additional territory which would require a navy for its defence.
That the Democratic Party in all this is sincere, no one can
doubt who hears a recitation of what it stands for, and what it
stands opposed to, in this campaign. The kind of candidate it
has selected is good evidence of its sincerity.
He stands for sound learning, and was a trained lawyer before
he became the accomplished and honored presiding Judge of the
Court of Appeals; he has lived true to the ideals and traditions of
that court. He is a safe Judge and a safe man. There is no one

24 18 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
who has yet had the effrontery to say that anything but high
motives have governed his judicial utterances. He stands as a
man for all that makes manhood worth while, for a simple and
rugged straightforwardness, for plain living and right thinking.
He may not devote much time to exhibitions of the arts of
rhetoric or to high-sounding phrases, but it may be that we have
been fed in this country so much on highly seasoned, spectacular
stuff, that we are no longer satisfied with the homely fare of
simple, old-fashioned, forcible statement. If Judge Parker is not
strenuous, he is at least of that dignity which will consort well with
the administration of the high office for which he is a candidate ;
and if he does not go about armed to the teeth, we can yet claim
that he is " rich in saving common sense."
Great problems are in process of being worked out in this coun
try. At one extreme stands the Republican Party with its
erroneous conception of government, that supreme power rests and
is to be augmented in the National Government, asserting by its
acts that the means are not to be so much regarded as the end;
that power shall be exerted arbitrarily and without warrant of law
or of the Constitution, provided only it work out to our commer
cial and financial benefit. Allied with the Republican Party, con-
cededly, are vast, concentrated and powerful commercial and
financial interests — not in themselves necessarily of injury to
society, but believed by many to contain the source of great pos
sible future peril.
At the other extreme are the dangerous forces which are bred
and nourished in unrest and discontent, and whose emancipation
from error only education, coupled with right example, can effect.
If the record of the Republican Party for the past few years be
now endorsed, and if the protest now urged against a course of
political conduct which has been opposed to law and constitutional
restraint be disregarded, will not an ominous object lesson have
been presented to those representing this unrest and discontent,
and may not they conclude that there is no good reason why they,
too, should not seize the opportunity when it seems to them ripe
and use any means which will accomplish what they regard as a
justifiable end, though we know that end to be disaster ?
We have boundless territory and great prosperity, — and na
tional prosperity, it must be admitted, is essential to the accom
plishment of the greatest good, — but to attain this prosperity we

IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE? 25
cannot afford to see weakened the foundations upon which our
security rests. Already on the subject of slavery this country has
been torn asunder by a war in which great blood and treasure were
poured out for the maintenance of the Union itself. That our
country will survive in all its undiminished vigor, with increasing
power for usefulness, should be the conviction of every citizen.
But this conviction will become only a hope, and perhaps not even
a reasonable hope at that, if we deliberately incur the new perils
which a lack of reverence for the Constitution is bound to create.
If, however, on the other hand, when doubts arise as to our duty
as a people, we have ever present in our thoughts the conditions
under which republican government here was begun, and have
regard for whatsoever things are elevated and uplifting, rejecting
utterly as a people the doctrine that expediency furnishes a satis
factory rule for conduct; if we live true to the standards set
up for our guidance by the founders of the Republic, and keep
untiring watch over their legacy to us, permitting no man and no
party, whether from good or from evil motives, to filch one
farthing of that treasure from us, then this Government must go
forward to fresh triumphs, not alone in material advancement,
but in all that makes for true greatness and for lasting renown.
Emerson says, as he prophesies of the future of the Republic,
" The spread eagle must fold his foolish wings, and be less of a
peacock." And then he adds :
" In this country, with our practical understanding, there is, at present,
a great sensualism, a headlong devotion to trade, to trade and to the
conquest of continent — to each man as large a share of the same as
he can carve for himself — an extravagant confidence in our talent and
activity, which becomes, whilst successful, a scornful materialism, but
with the fault, of course, that it has no depth, no reserved force to fall
back upon when a reverse comes."
Matthew Arnold, too, has given us this out of the rich store
house of his intelligence :
" And the philosophers and the prophets, whom I at any rate am dis
posed to believe, and who say that moral causes govern the standing
and the falling of States, will tell us that the failure to mind what
soever things are elevated must impair with an inexorable fatality the
life of a nation, just as the failure to mind whatsoever things are just,
or whatsoever things are pure, will impair it; and that if the failure
to mind whatsoever things are elevated should be real in your American
democracy, and should grow into a disease, and take firm hold on you,

26 18, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY INSINCERE?
then the life of even these great United States must inevitably suffer and
be impaired more and more, until it perish."
Horace, in one of his great Odes, summed up, for us as well as
for the Roman People, the philosophy of conduct for a nation,
when he charged them with having left so long un visited and
neglected the altars of the gods :
" Dis te minorem quod geris, imperas ;
Hinc orone principium, hue refer exitum."
All this may be scoffed at as preaching the counsels of per
fection; but, if space permitted, such preaching could be abund
antly reinforced by many quotations not alone from the writings
of other authors, but from the writings of Mr. Roosevelt himself,
who in stirring, eloquent words has taught and advocated much
which he has discarded in his public life.
And when such preaching and the practices it enjoins shall be
departed from by those holding high places of political trust
among us, and the departure be not condemned, and when this
preaching and these practices shall cease to furnish us with our
rule for national conduct, we shall show as little solicitude for
the best interests of the Republic as we should for our personal
safety, if, in embarking on a ship for a long voyage, we threw
overboard chart and compass as we dropped the pilot.
Joseph S. Auekbach.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

THE 3 9002 08937 3501
NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW
$5.00 a Year} 50 Cents a. Copy
FRANKLIN SQUARE, NEW YORK CITY

, PRESS COMMENTS
Constantly offers to the public a programme of writers and essays that excite
the reader and gratify the intellectual appetite; In this, respect there is no other
magazine that approaches it. — N. Y. SUN. ,''"''• "
The questions which are making the history of our time so intensely interesting
have never had more striking and more able presentation than they receive in the
North American Review.^PHILADELPHIA PRESS.
If any one name in magazine literature stands for what is authoritative, that
name is The North American Review, which for more than eighty-nine years has
remained at the head of monthly periodicals.—BOSTON POST.
The editor appears to know what his readers want. Every one is willing to pay
50 cents for a volume of the most advanced opinions of the day at first hand. —
NEW YORK PRESS,
Is ahead of any magazine this country has ever seen in the importance of the
topics it discusses and the eminence of its contributors.— ALBANY ARGUS.
The reader who wishes to intelligently study the events of the day will find
The North American Review a most reliable medium. Each month it presents
a dozen or more papers bearing, for the most part, upon the leading. questions of
the day, written by men wbo are claimed as experts in their special departments.
—AUGUSTA (Me.) JOURNAL.
The premier magazine of the world.— LYNN NEWS & COUNTY PRESS,
England. The North American Review offers something of importance in practically
every paper it publishes.-^THE NEW YORK MAIL AND EXPRESS.
The North American Review has come to be known as the " thinking manV
magazine —ST. LOUIS GLOBE-DEMOCRAT*.
The North American Review has acquired the happy faculty of presenting
serious articles in a manner that appeals to a wide public— ST. LOUIS GLOBE-
DEMOCRAT.

PRESS COMMENTS
Brains of the highest quality go into the monthly make-up of The North Amer
ican Review, which presents in compact form the opinions of the most distinguished
authorities upon important questions of contemporary interest. — LANDMARK,
Norfolk, Va.
No periodical in America, 'we believe, has had so long and, it may be added, so
useful an existence as this publication. Its survival and popularity have been
due to the high order of talent enlisted, and to the up-to-date quality of its contents.
—LYNCHBURG (Va.) NEWS.
The North American Review is the most timely of the reviews in the relevancy
of its topics to the hour of publication.— NEW YORK WORLD.
The North American Review is undoubtedly the leading magazine of serious
thought published in the United States.— GALVESTON TRIBUNE.
We must know what the world is doing, and to publish the opinions of those whose
opinions are worth knowing is a benefit conferred by the North American Review
with praiseworthy periodicity.— OUR ANIMAL FRIENDS, New York City.
Important subjects are treated from every point of view in this great review,
which is catholic in its scope, and the contributors are always men or women whose
views command respect.— THE GENTLEWOMAN, London, England.
The North American Review presents to its readers each month the most
brilliant galaxy of articles upon world-problems to be found in any periodical at
home or abroad. Each article is written by the one man in the world most competent
to deal with that particular subject, and all are leaders of thought and opinion.
For eighty-nine years the North American Review has guided public opinion in
this country on all the great political, social, religious, and industrial questions of the
day, and the present editorial management is the most brilliant and successful in
the history of this famous review. — SUCCESS, New York City.
The North American Review covers the wide field of modern interests so
thoroughly that it is likely to remain without a rival; none is needed. It has won
by a strong, able, and thorough policy the circulation that is greater than that of
the eight English reviews combined.— SAN FRANCISCO BULLETIN.
The leading magazine of American thought and opinion in the various fields and
departments of the world's activity.— NEW YORK HOME JOURNAL.
The regular reader of this splendid monthly always turns to its pages with the
expectation of being interested as well as entertained, and he is never disappointed.
— ALTOONA (Pa.) TRIBUNE.