NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12229, 26 March 1903, Page 4

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

TRUSTS IN T THE UNITED STATES. The Government of the United States has a troubled time before it. President Roosevelt is a strong man, and, as his countrymen say. a " magnetic" person. If lie is selected as the champion of the Republican party when the contest for the Presidency hits again to be decided by the popular vote in 1904, he seems likely to carry the nation with in, so far, at least, as outsiders can form any opinion about the intricacies of American politics. But the task he has to confront is a difficult one. He has almost inevitably placed himself in a position of hostility towards some of the politicians who control " the machine," and who bitterly resent the attitude he has taken up towards "trusts." The powerful combinations of capitalists, who have staked all on the success of trusts, and who have given material assistance, in good and evil days, to the Republican party, are very much disturbed by the attitude of President Roosevelt. They do not' see their way to get rid of so masterful a man, and they do not at all care to see lain come into office with a popular mandate to iecommend to Congress drastic measures for the regulation of trusts by the Federal Government. The question is now formally before the Senate, though no immediate decision, in a legislative sense, is expected, or, indeed, is possible. Meanwhile, if current reports be true, the " trusts" have shown their hand in a very audacious and injudicious way. Mr. Rockefeller, the head of the Standard Oil Trust, and one of the wealthiest men in the world, is said to have telegraphed a peremptory message, a few days ago, to several members of the Senate, warning them that "anti-trust legislation must be stopped." It was stated by our New York correspondent (says the London Times) that, according to a. despatch from Washington, this amazing ukase was reinforced by • a communication ' to " at least six Senators" by one of Mr. Rockefeller's legal advisers. The statement has, it would appear, created a sensation, not only in Washington, but throughout the United States. If any attempt of the kind was ' made to bring the influence of capital to | bear, in such—a crude and almost brutal manner, on members of the Federal Legislature, words are inadequate to condemn what our correspondent has described as the "extraordinary effrontery and unwisdom" of such i proceedings. However certain it may be that capital in the United States exercises immense power in Congress, and, particularly, in the Senate, it is obviously unadvisable, even from the tactical point of view, that these influences should be exposed to public criticism. Mr. Rockefeller's telegrams to the Senators—if they were sent at all, as to which point it is right to say there is a controversy—can only have clone harm to his cause. The Oil Trust, which enhances the price of what has become practically one of the necessaries of life with the masses of , the people in the United States, and in Europe also, is not so popular that it can afford to be suspected of buying off hostile legislation. The statement on which we have commented has been challenged, and, though it would seem to have emanated from the highest sources, many people in the United States are eager to discredit it. We have no right to say whether it is true or false, and the responsibility in this matter must be left with the important news agency on the other side of the Atlantic which is known as "The Associated Press." But our correspondent declares, very positively, that, whether this particular rumour be well founded or not, the general belief | in the United States is that " the Oil : Trust is making strenuous efforts to pre- | vent anti-trust legislation, and especially the passing of measures intended to secure j publicity." A NOTABLE BULGARIAN. By the death of M. Karaveloff, which occurred recently, a notable figure in the history of the young Bulgarian State disappears. Petko Karaveloff was ' born at Koprivshtitza, in Eastern Rumelia, in 1845. He spent his youth in Russia, and. with his brother Liubin, the well-known Bulgarian litterateur, was educated at Moscow University, where he devoted special attention to philosophy and political economy. He returned to Bulgaria with the Russian army in 1877, and subsequently became the rival of M. Zankoff as a leader of the Liberal party. He became Prime Minister in 1880, but after Prince Alexander's Coup d'Etat in the following year retired into private life, and, like

—-s».his rival, became a teacher in a school. » returned to Sofia after the restoration of th Constitution, and in 1884 was again a* pointed Prime Minister. After the aodub tion of Prince Alexander, in which hi" enemies assert'he was concerned, he became a member of the Regency, but, finding k possible to co-operate with M. Stambuloff" he resigned, and retired into private - life* . ; After the revolt- at Bustchuk he was thrown into prison, where he was flogged by the famous Major Panitza, who was his personal enemy. He was subsequently released, but continued to be an object of suspicion to M Stambuloff, who in 1891 ordered his arrest on the charge of complicity in the murder of M. Beltcheff. He was tried by court-martial and found guilty on evidence quite as uncon- ' vincing as that which a few years later was considered sufficient to warrant an order for ■ M. Stambuloff arrest. He was condemned to five years' imprisonment, some of the for. eigu representatives having used their inflneuce to prevent a capital sentence from being passed. He remained in prison after the fall of M. Stambuloff, having persistently refused to address a petition for pardon to Prince Ferdinand. In 1895 he was elected a deputy" and his activity this time in propagating democratic doctrines among ttie peasantry won him considerable popularity. In February, . 1901. lie became Prime Minister a third time, but inability to deal with the financial truestion led to his fall in the following December. M. Kavaveloff was a man of wide reading, ' but lie was a doctrinaire rather than a practical politician. His singleness of purpose and personal probity are undeniable, and cost > him the loss of many political partisans. Though thrice Prime Minister, he has died iii comparative overt}*. social iirrr.ovnitENTS. Sir John Gorst delivered a little speech recently in Manchester upon social reform. He insisted upon an old, but neglected, prescription for social ills that people should exhaust the powers they possess for the improvement of administration instead of leaving them unused, and calling out for some | showy general' scheme of reform embodied in an Act of Parliament. People are gene- ■''.'-: rally very much in earnest about their own affairs, and it is instructive to notice how they go about promoting them. The careful observer will see that legislation is the las.; . thing they think of. They spend infinite ,' pains and ingenuity in making the best of things as they are, in adapting imperfect arrangements •to their needs, and in getting round even artificial obstacles put in their ' way by mistaken legislation. It is only ' when large numbers of men find themselves brought to a standstill that they combine to demand the reform of bad laws affecting their own affairs ; and, so clever arj they at making accommodative arrangements, that they frequently regard even what is irrational witii positive affection, But when it is a cuies- .-' tion of other people's affairs the case. is V entirely altered. Then they put legislation first instead of last.' Instead of doing semething, they go about saying that something must be done. When that has been svd often enough and long enough, some aspiring politician takes up the cry. If he cries loud v enough and long enough, other politicians discover that he is only proclaiming vhat has been their own profound conviction ever since they were breeched. Then the politi- ' cians of opposite parties reproach cue, another for never having dealt with this momentous question, and, after a few years 1 of taunts and recriminations, one party ; brings in a Bill on the subject, which the V other at once declares to be subversive of the sacred principles on which society .is founded. After infinite discussion the Bill jj becomes law; and, after a few years of I costly litigation, people begin to find out what the Legislature is held to have in« : tended, and generally discover at the same time that what the Legislature intended' is v' not what was wanted. What is the reason of the difference in procedure ? Simply that people are in earnest about their own business, and therefore do it themselves, but are : not in earnest about social reform, and there-:. fore leave it for the Legislature to do. Sir | John Gorst pins his faith to local authorities, which he thinks ought to be kept up to their ■ proper work. But only earnestness on the part of the public at large can keep them up to their work ; while, constituted as they are at present, they are in many cases conspicuous for leaving undone what they might do,, and clamouring for powers to do showy ' things of the kind dear to the ordinary politician. ' .