The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-01-21
FRON OTHER PENS
TAKING KNOWLEDGE.

The commonwealth of Astralia is
growing more and more protectionist,
and the new tariff, with its higher rates
all along the line, has surprised no one.
But there are certain features in the re-
cent act that have excited criticism
and resentment, even among the advo-
Gates of a pronoun6ed system of pro-
lection. These have to do with the
periodical press and the dissemination
of popular knowledge
A provision that is considered partic-
ularly obnoxious imposes duty of II
cents pound on all imported mag
aztnes that contain advertising matter
weighing more than one-fifth of the
whole printed stuff within the covers
The effect Of this increase of the cost
Of imported magazines, 1t is said. will
be TO raise the retail price from IL to 60
cents in many instances. The reason for
this duty is very curious. It has
nothing to do with revenue considera-
tions. It is intended to prevent the
sale of the things advertised and there
by enlarge the market for the domestic
manufacturers The argument is that
Australian goods cannot, in the nature
of things, be as artistic and modern as
those of Europe and America, and the
readers Of the foreign magazines, at
tracted by the advertisements of i'm
provised and tastefully made articles
are tempted to purchase these in
preference to the cruder ones produced
at home. Encouragement of national
industries, therefore, requires that
magazine readers shall be kept in
wholesome ignorance Of "fads and
fancies" and modern devices.
Another provision under attack Is
that which imposes a 10 per cent tax
on all print paper imported from coun-
tries other than England when such
paper is used by daily newspapers
n no hue
from Canada and the United States
and it is estimated that the Australian
press will have to pay annually under
this provision, $125,000. Whether the
able to meet this new tax is said to be
observation-disclosures Star.
CLOSE DECISION
1t is to be regretted that on a ques-
ton of such Importance as that raised
by the defendants in the employers
liability law cases the justices of the
more in accord in their opinions.
Four justices, including Chief Justice
Fuller, concurred with Justice White
in declaring the law to be unconstitu-
tional, while four held that it was
valid. Moreover, no two justices ap-
pear to have reached the same con-
clusion by the same process of rea-
soning.
So close a decision, with such a va
ration in arguments, probably will
keep alive the movement to make en-
ployers liable for the injuries of their
employees, regardless of the careless
ness of fellowservants. 1t is not to
be expected, however, that any effort
will be made to enact a new law so
long as the United States supreme
court is constituted as at present. The
majority of the court was positive
that congress has no right to inter-
fere in this way with the relations be-
tween employers and employees. To
most persons this will appeal as the
common sense view.
1t is an interesting fact that of the
seven or eight decisions handed down
in the lower federal courts in the last
year only two hold the law to be I'M
constitutional. One of the lower
judges who believed that the law was
constitutional cited laws protecting
sailors as sufficient precedent for a
federal liability act for land carriers.
and also asserted that such law
would make to the greater security
of the travelling public, as it would
oblige the railroads to take every pos
sible precautfon to prevent accidents
OF whatever nature. The reports of
railroad accidents show that many
are caused by negligence of employees,
and that in nearly all these accidents
employees lose their lives or are Sc
riously injured-Buffalo Express.