I

AM glad to avail myself of the generous invitation of the REVIEW OF REVIEWS to speak of the work likely to be done by the Democratic convention when it meets in San Francisco. The delegates who assemble there will be guided by the same motive that controlled the delegates to the Republican convention just adjourned. That is, the paramount purpose will be to present a winning platform and candidate.

I do not care to discuss candidates at this time. There is no logical candidate this year no man so closely identified with the party's program as to be in himself an embodiment of the record and purpose of the organization. The platform adopted will increase or decrease relative availability of aspirants. For instance, a "dry" plank will of itself eliminate "wet" candidates; and a "wet" plank, if such a thing were possible, would eliminate "dry" candidates.

Of principles and policies it is easier to speak. The party has a wonderful record of accomplishment; and this record will of course be endorsed. During the first four years of President Wilson's administration, the Democratic party, in complete possession of the government, put upon the statute books more great remedial measures than were ever written into law in any previous four years. These measures have so completely vindicated themselves in practice that the Republican party would not dare to challenge any of them.

The Party's War Record

During the second administration Democratic officials conducted the nation's part in the most gigantic war of history. While mistakes have been made, and while waste can undoubtedly be found, the faults will appear insignificant when compared with unparalleled accomplishments. No other nation ever so quickly and so effectively mobilized its resources. No other army was ever drafted in so short a time; and neither any her government nor this government at

growth in the Republican vote, but this was not unnatural. The war, being unprecedented in magnitude, called for action upon many different subjects, and the introduction of new measures necessarily alienated many people.

The appeal which the President made at the close of the campaign is by many blamed for a part of the Republican increase. Many Democratic candidates feel that their defeat was due in part to the President's letter-it being impossible, after its publication, to secure Republican support to offset the fallingoff due to dissatisfaction of Democrats with measures which the Administration considered necessary to the proper conduct of the war. The President's letter gave Republican leaders a pretext, if not an excuse, for unloosing a partisan spirit which has met the President at every point since that election.

The negotiation of the treaty raised many new questions of which the Republicans were quick to take advantage. They questioned the wisdom of his going to Paris; they complained that he did not invite prominent Republicans to aid in the framing of the treaty; they warned him of opposition to proposed terms; they heckled him at every opportunity.

Attitude on the League of Nations

It is not worth while to discuss now whether the President was as tactful as he might have been, or whether he could have turned away senatorial wrath by a soft answer. The situation has to be dealt with as it is, and that situation presents one of the most difficult problems with which the convention will have to deal. No course is entirely easy. To declare for the covenant of the League of Nations as it was written, involves a rebuke to twenty-seven out of the forty-seven Democratic Senators-twentythree of whom voted for ratification with what are known as the Lodge reservations, and four of whom were opposed to ratification under any conditions. To declare in favor of ratification with any reservations different from the Lodge reservations would require agreement upon reservations proposed and a campaign in which the voters would be lost in the effort to compare phraseology.

To declare in favor of ratification with the reservations agreed upon by thirty-four Republicans and twenty-three Democratsfifty-seven out of the seventy-seven Senators favoring ratification but differing on reser

vations-would seem to be the easiest way out of the dilemma. It would put the Democratic party in the position of defending the League of Nations as an institution, and it would enable our party to avail itself of the support of the League idea by more than two-thirds of the Republican Senators. Acceptance of the vote of a majority involves no mortification in a government dedicated to the rule of the people. Acquiescence in the position of a majority is the basic principle of our republic-it permits progress without any surrender of opinion. In this case it could be aided by advocacy of a constitutional amendment permitting a majority to ratify a treaty, thus making it as easy to end a war as to enter it.

The League of Nations is a continuing institution; any changes that need to be made can be made that is what the League is for. It will be constantly called upon to consider proposed changes. An immediate acceptance of the decision of a majority enables us to enter the League now and do our duty to the world, a duty so imperative that we know that the other nations would infinitely prefer to have us accept with any reservations we deem necessary, rather than to postpone our entry into this august tribunal.

Democratic Devotion to Peace

If the Republicans are willing to drag this great world question into a political campaign, in the hope of making political capital out of it, the Democrats can appeal with confidence to that patriotic spirit which will applaud our party if it refuses to share responsibility for any postponement of the relief which the League of Nations can bring. We have great domestic problems that demand attention; those who are interested in these problems will be grateful to our party if it opens the way for the prompt consideration of home questions while it at the same time offers counsel and advice that may mean more to the peace of the world to-day than a million men would mean a year from now.

Such a policy would seem as expedient as it is righteous, for we know now that neither party will be able to secure at the coming election a two-thirds control of the United States Senate; and since a two-thirds vote is now necessary to ratification, the Senate will be as helpless after March next as it is now, neither party being able to furnish the votes necessary for ratification upon its own terms. The Democratic party has an opportunity

to prove its devotion to the world at large without sacrificing the interests of our own country. It can declare a policy as beneficial to the United States as to other nations. It can move for the disarmament of the world, and the motion will be seconded by the wageearners of every civilized nation and by the producers generally, who cry out against increased burdens of taxation.

Nothing but disarmament can save the world from greater military burdens than were borne before the war. Look at our own country. We are now proposing an expenditure of something like a billion a year for army and navy, a great deal more than was considered necessary before the world was made safe for democracy. The Republican leaders have not only shown indifference to world peace, but they have attempted to add to our military burdens by the inauguration of a system of universal compulsory military training estimated to cost the people seven hundred millions a year.

Nobody is in position to say in advance what action the Democratic party will take on the League issue, but I am persuaded that our appeal to the American people will not be in vain if we prove our devotion to universal peace. The old theory of peace by terrorism has been exploded; we have yet to try peace based upon coöperation and brotherhood, made effective through machinery that substitutes reason for force in the settlement of international differences.

Dealing with the Profiteer

I am not risking much when I express the belief that the Democratic party will deal effectively with the profiteer. Senators Lodge, Johnson, and Borah, in their speeches at Chicago, tried to shift from Congress to the President blame for continued profiteering, and the convention adopted the same policy. If, as will hardly be disputed, a large majority of the profiteers are active members of the Republican party, it is not difficult to understand why the Republican convention treated the subject so lightly. The Democratic convention will not be so greatly embarrassed, and may be expected to take advantage of the inaction of the Republican convention by proposing specific legislation that will, first, eliminate unnecessary middle men, and, second, restrict the necessary middle men to a compensation commensurate with the service actually

rendered.

Such action is necessary not only to pre

vent injustice to both producers and consumers, but it is also necessary for the purpose of preventing an undue expansion of the middle-men class. Men will not be content to toil upon the farm or in the factory if those who engage in trade are permitted to exact an extortionate toll. Profiteering is contagious, but it differs from other contagious diseases in that people are anxious to catch it.

We do not think it any infringement upon the rights of bankers to put a legal limit upon the amount of interest that they can collect; is there any reason why the same principle of limitation may not be applied to other classes of business? It is the effect of usury, not the name, that justifies the law; and the middle man's profit may be as usurious as an extortionate rate of interest.

Labor Questions

I venture to predict that the delegates assembled at San Francisco will give sympathetic attention to both wage-earners and farmers-the two classes that together constitute more than half of the population. The Republican party is very quick to denounce class government when government by the laboring class or by the farmer is suggested, although class government by a large class would not seem to be more obnoxious than class government by a small class. The Republican party does not disguise its willingness to have the so-called "business class" in control of the government. The Democratic party is in position to object to class government by any class, and to insist upon real democracy that is, "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people," in which each citizen shall be entitled to equal voice and to equal rights no matter to what class he may belong.

I hope that our platform will not only clearly define the things which it favors in the interest of labor, but that it will propose

plan, similar to the plan embodied in our thirty treaties for the adjustment of disputes. We have at present no sufficient machinery for the prevention of strikes. The treaty plan provides for investigation instead of arbitration. Arbitration implies forced acceptance of the award, whereas investigation leaves the parties to act independently after the facts are laid before the public. Compulsory arbitration is, I think, antagonistic to the American spirit whether applied to employer or employee; but compulsory investigation is not only in the interest of both

cmployer and employee but protects the public-that large third party whose interests have not been sufficiently safeguarded.

I think our convention will favor a bonus to the service men to be paid from a fund raised from a tax on war profits and stock dividends.

The Prohibition Amendment

We cannot know at this time whether there will be agreement or disagreement upon the prohibition question. The amendment is a part of the Constitution; the Volstead Act is upon the statute books; and the Supreme Court has upheld the amendment and the law against every attack made upon them. No one would now think of inserting a "wet" plank in the Democratic platform; and it is not certain that any considerable opposition can now be made to the insertion of a "dry" plank. John Barleycorn is dead. Why not bury him? The obsequies naturally follow the demise, and as in this case the demise may be regarded as due to a death sentence legally imposed and lawfully executed, it would seem to be proper that the Democratic party should formally assist in disposing of the corpse.

Our party has had an honorable part in the abolition of the saloon; the District of Columbia was made "dry" by a law passed by a Democratic Senate and House and signed by a Democratic President. The national amendment was submitted by a Democratic Senate and House and ratified by every Democratic State.

It is not sufficient to say, as some now do,

that the question being settled no mention need be made of it in the platform. Since when has it ceased to be proper for a party to point with pride to great accomplishments? Why should our party be denied credit for its share in the greatest moral triumph of the generation, if not in the nation's history? The Democratic party deemed it wise to announce in three Democratic platforms that slavery was dead and that the subject was not to be reopened. Three citizens of New York State ran on these platforms-the platforms of 1868, 1872, and 1876.

If it was wise to announce repeatedly that the slavery question would not be reopened, when no State was asking that it be reopened, shall we hesitate now to make a similar declaration in regard to the death of the liquor traffic when the Democrats of a great State like New York formally announce unalterable opposition to the amendment and promise its repeal?

The failure of the Republican Convention to endorse prohibition makes indorsement by the Democratic party more imperative.

I have not attempted to cover all the questions that will be considered by the convention, but the ones referred to will be among the most important. When we have written a platform which meets the needs of the hour, we shall be in better position to select a candidate who fits the platform. As principles and policies are more important than the officials who carry them out, I need offer no apology for discussing these rather than men.

EVERYBODY VERYBODY seems to be for a federal budget system. Presidential aspirants in recent statements invariably have included it in their list of recommendations. Agitation for it by no means is new but never has there been such a unanimity of expression. for it as in recent months.

If the scheme is adopted by the federal government, as sooner or later no doubt it will, it probably will be patterned after the system as it is operated in some of the States. Half a dozen or more States have the budget system, as have also some of the larger cities of the country.

Among the first States to adopt it was Ohio. In his first campaign for Governor, back in 1912, James M. Cox pledged himself to inaugurate the system in Ohio, if elected. He was then a member of Congress, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and had become disgusted with the unsystematic handling of public funds.

At no

Accordingly, one of his first recommendations to the Ohio general Assembly in 1913 was that of a budget system, placing the financial affairs of the State as nearly as possible upon a business basis. The scheme as recommended by him was adopted and has been in operation ever since. time has there been any thought of abolishing it. It demonstrated its worth as a money-saver from the beginning and, although the State has had two Republican General Assemblies since, never has an attempt been made to repeal the budget system as first inaugurated by a Democratic Governor and Legislature.

Abuses of Former Methods

The previous Ohio fiscal system had grown grossly archaic. Appropriations were made by the Legislature to the departments in lump sums or in the form of granting all receipts and balances, some of the departments being maintained by fees from interests they regulate. Of the departments having receipts of their own, many had deposits their nks, had their own check

hat their funds never

Other departments got much or little from the Legislature, depending upon whether they had a gifted representative to appear for them before the legislative finance committees. Institutions vied with each other in providing the best entertainment to the finance committees as they made their weekend junket trips over the State during legislative sessions.

The System as Now Organized

All this was changed in one sweeping stroke in the first administration of Governor Cox. All receipts of all departments now go into the State Treasury and none leaves the treasury until it is appropriated in specific sums for specific purposes within specific departments. The State Auditor has a check on every expenditure.

The Ohio budget department is composed. of one commissioner, appointed by the Governor, an assistant and a clerk! All department requests for funds desired of the next succeeding legislature are filed with the Budget Commissioner. He investigates all items, ascertains the reasons for any increases that are asked, and fixes the sums he deems

proper.

Also he estimates what the State revenues during the next biennium will be and prunes the budget to come within the total of expected revenues.

The budget as prepared by the commissioner is submitted to the Governor, who frequently makes changes of his own after advising with department heads.

The Governor then presents the budget to the Legislature, which refers it to the finance committees of the two houses. The committees, and in turn the Legislature, have full authority to make any alterations, increases or decreases, desired, but the spellbinding by department representatives and wire-pulling by lobbyists are reduced to a minimum because the Budget Commissioner sits at all sessions of the Finance Committees and at all times is prepared to defend the allowance he thinks a department should have.