New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-11-01
THE PALACES OF DIR. ELIOT
and Extravagances of His Recent Articles Exposed
by Mr.. George r. Bishop-A Poor Exhibition OF the
Art Of Reasoning

marily responsible" for it is it not
clear that he has lost touch with the
facts? For was IL not the President
who invited TO conference represen-
tatives OF the railroads, and of the
brotherhoods, who threatened the
strike; heard the former. came 70 his
hasty conclusion Con hearing only the
former, refusing TO hear the other side),
that IAN eight-hour law commends IT.
self to American society at large" and
spurred Congress on 10 a taking up OF
the subject and acting?
But even If DR.. Eliot were right as 70
the responsibility, he says the term
eight-hour was a misnomer; that an
eight-hour day was not what the law
was enacted to secure; and the Presi-
dent signed the law as passed, not in
sisting, as a condition, on the insertion
Of the additional provisions ne had
proposed and which DR.. Eliot thinks
would have improved the law. This
being so, how can the doctor claim
that Congress was mainly responsible2
In his second paper he seems 70 realize
this, for he says, ut is much 70 be re-
GREETED that the President made the
Adamson bill law by his signature,
because it was enacted under impera-
tive and arrogant threats"
He thinks the President accomplished
his first object-preventing the strike
but failed in the second-that is, 20
guard against similar hold-ups in the
future, for "he has left the labor organ
izations of the country full OF conf
dence that by the method generally
known as a "hold-up" they can obtain
by force whatever demands they may
see fit TO make. Still, ne thinks this
disastrous failure" as he terms 1t, is
not the Presidents fault alone; that
the people must share the blame, for
they have never apprehended the in
tense selfshness Of the labor organiza-
tions, or their ruthlessness in causing
indscriminste suffering in order TO
gain their ends, or the demoralizing
nature of their policy Of limited output
and uniform wage" But is not the
| doctor wholly at sea relative TO the
completely Of the American people in
/ this surrender? Does he not recall that,
as represented by their newspapers,
they vigorously protested against the
surrender which the President was ad-
vocating and was to further participate
| in by approving the bill when enacted
On the philosophy of the whole sub
/ iect the doctor makes several observa-
tions which place him in hostility
to what the President and many of his
supporters advocate. He says that no
practical experience in this country
or any other supports what the Presi-
/ dent thinks commends itself ito So
ciety at large" Experience and prac-
tice show" the doctor says, that
uniform number of hours prescribed as
days work in the endlessly various
! industries OF the American people is
| inexpedient and undesirable. In some In
dustries eight hours a day are too
many, in others too few. There
are many seasonal industries in which
| the work cannot be well done at fixed
rate of so many hours a day, so that
| the workers should be left free to work
hours a day, at certain seasons or peri
DDS, and less at other seasons or
periods"
Thus the antagonism between what
the President contends for and what
the doctor claims is extreme and ire
concilable. Yet, on the foreign policy
as TO protection of American citi-
zens, which is the reverse of what
American statesmen heretofore have
stood for-the doctor supports Mr..
Wilson's candidacy. Reviewing his
papers, the impression must prevail
that he goes by contraries; that he
discards and ignores the strong rea-
sons, stated by himself, for repudiat-
ing that candidacy, and yields to a sem
timent weak as water" Every Har-
ward man should read these papers,
especially the second, to discover to
what a pass the art of reasoning as
displayed by the president emeritus
has come. GEORGE r. BISHOP.
New York, Oct 80, 1916.