The Washington herald., 1907-02-25
presidentinI onnortnnism.

There is a note Of oppOrtunism in Presi-
dent ROosevelts Harvard address which
may serve to explain his course Of action
with respect to several important matters
lately brought to his attention. When the
President describes the most useful states
man as one who is ''resolute to accomplish
good purposes" but who can accommo-
date himself to give and take where
work has 70 be done, il is impossible not
TO think OF this description as fitting no
one so well as Mr. Roosevelt himself for
It tallies exactly with his way OF doing
things, and it Eliminates the occasional
failure Of a resolute purpose to accom-
plish all that 1t set out to do.
The japanese settlement was a fine ex-
ample of give and take, and the tariff
question, too-does not that involve a good
deal of give and take? We do not mem
ton these Instances in a spirit of cTiti-
cism. but in the hope of calculating Mr..
Roosevelt to his critics, His willingness
to give and take. his readiness to COM
promise if he must in order TO rescue a
saving remnant of his purpose. are as
characteristic of the man as his resolu-
tion and strength of will. Bearing this
in mind. we realize that what the Presi-
dent has had to yield 20 his opponents in
any particular instance may have been
the price paid for what he actually OBJ
tanned So that his opportunism should
be judged by its fruits, and not by COM
pairing what was done with what might
have been done, to the disparagement of
actual achievement.
The President restates his familiar
views as to the Federal control Of cor
pOratiOns. but in terms of moderation and
good temper. Even the much-abused
railroads may extract a grain of comfort
from his statement that most emphatic
ally it is both the duty and the interest
of our people TO deal fairly with such
corporations"
Similarly, the minatOry tone is absent
from the Presidents discussion of State
rights. and his view that the revival of
the State rights idea has behind it some
selfish and dangerous interests has many
adherents even among those who strong
Is. oppose Capitalization. But we are not
sure that the States have shown that
they have not the ability 10 curb the
power Of syndicated wealth" for we do
not believe the States have exhausted
their powers in that direction. It is true
enough that States should not create cor
porations endowed with predatory powers
that may be used oppressively in other
States, but the States have ample author
itv to prescribe the limits within which
corporate action may be employed. and
until such authority has been afirmativeIy
shown to be inadequate 10 control cor
porate activities we do not think it can
be held that the States have not the
ability to curb the power of syndicated
wealth. The real question IS not one of
ability. but of willingness. or. rather.
whether the States shall control the cor
porations or permit themselves to be con-
trolled by them. The power is ample, but
the flesh is weak
However. to the whole question of State
rights may be applied the give and take
principle, and theory is not likely to tri-
umph over what the President calls prac-
teal good sense when some necessary end
can be gained in no other way than by
intrustiHg It 10 Federal power. We are
all oppOrtunists. more or less. and il Is
matter of common observation that
good many State rights people are as
willing 10 give and take as the President
when they want the Federal government
to do something that is to their ad-
vantage. And rightly. too; for govern
ments are instituted for the benefit Of the
people, not for the complication of
political maXims and constitutional
theories.