(Philadelphia Public Ledger.)

THE French cabinet, under the premiership of M. Caillaux, which terminated yesterday after a rather colorless tenure of little more than six months, was occupied so largely with external affairs that it contributed but little to the settlement of the social and economic questions which are agitating the French people, or at least that part of the nation which takes interest in public matters. Its fall would appear to be due to its own inherent weakness, and as has often been the case the cause is to be found more particularly in the personality of the French politicians concerned, for and against, than in any great issue of public policy. It had its origin, in the first place, in the sharp differences which arose between the premier, M. Caillaux, and the foreign minister, M. de Selves, over the Morocco negotiations with Germany, but these were brought to a head and accentuated by the adroit activity of that destroyer of ministries, M. Clemenceau.

Not the least interesting incident of the present cabinet crisis has been the short-lived return of M. Delcasse to the foreign office. His position in the cabinet which has just resigned, and in that of M. Monis which preceded it, had previously marked his return to public life after his defeat over the first Morocco "affaire" in 1905. At that time M. Delcasse incurred the enmity of Germany, and under the menace of instant war the French government was obliged to subject him and itself to the humiliation of his retirement at the behest of Berlin. He was too powerful a statesman, however, to remain long in darkness, and although the circumstances of his withdrawal from office would have spelled the political death of most men, he remained in parliament, and in 1909 received the credit of having been chiefly instrumental in unseating the "Cabinet-breaker" Clemenceau himself. In the Monis and Caillaux ministries he has administered the navy with energy and ability, and it is a remarkable tribute to him that his momentary recall to the foreign office, on the eve of the downfall of Caillaux, was accepted with such equanimity in Germany.

(Detroit News.)

If there is any justification whatever for the repeated statement that the popular discussion of public questions is not an intelligent and thorough discussion, it is found in those cases where the discussion has been cut short by an election. The necessity of taking sides, of throwing up propositions and defending them, of "landing" certain candidates in certain offices, has sometimes had the effect of taking the people's minds off the principles involved, or, indeed, not giving them time to apprehend those principles. But when a question which is not welcome to the parties seeps up through the mind of the American people, and though ignored election after election, grows into a commanding issue, the ultimate expression of public opinion on that question is, as a rule, all that could be desired by the most fastidious thinker. Between nominations and elections, where large issues are involved, it is not surprising that mistakes are sometimes made, but give the people time to think the entire problem through and you must agree that the work they do IS thinking.

Take, for instance, the trust question as it stands at present. It has been the subject of public discussion for a decade. But it did not begin with principle; it began in concrete cases of overbearing industrial and financial piracy. The first phase took no cognizance whatever of the deep principles involved. It was "bust the trusts," and that was all. Well, the busting was attempted with a large access of knowledge and experience on the part of the busters. They came back time and again, sometimes with a modicum of hope, sometimes with brave faces hiding their actual failure. But all this time the people were thinking, thinking. Presently it dawned on some that the trust might be an industrial evolution perfectly good in itself, but harmful as then handled. A little later on it was discovered that there were good trusts and bad trusts. From this stage onward the whole question was threshed out by the nation from a new standpoint, and the outcome of the work was a plea for the regulation of all trusts-recognition first, and then regulation.

And now the nation is getting down to solid bedrock and has already in its hands the fundamental questions involved-competion vs. non-competition. It is one of the most hopeful signs of

the time, one of the best vindications of the thoroughness and intelligence of the American people, that the issue is now divided between two parties, the one saying that the trust is the modern form of doing business, and the other insisting that it is possible to go back to the old methods of competition. For the first time in the entire controversy, popular opinion has reached the lines on which the whole matter must ultimately be resolved. Not that it is necessary to conclude that the triumph of one or the other of these parties will settle the matter finally, for it must always be borne in mind that any principle strong enough to command a party has in it enough excellence to justify its modifying the application of the principle which happens to be held by the party which shall dominate.

There is much to be said for the trust method of doing business-even if in all conscience there is little enough to be said for the "trusts." The trust method is the method of coöperation whereby wastes and duplications and depleting warfare can be avoided. It is the labor-saving appliance of business.

On the other hand, competition has its excellencies. Under competition there was never any question of the consumer getting what belonged to him, and sometimes in the heat of competitory warfare he got more than belonged to him-which was just as great an economic transgression as when he got less; for a just and stable method demands balance above all things. If the trust method did more for materials, competition sometimes did more for men. Seeing that none of us are here for a very great while, it may not be so important that wastes of material be eliminated as that wastes of men be eliminated. And it is just a question whether the trust system has not resulted in some stifling of initiative, some suppression of industrial or commercial genius, in short, some waste of men. However this may be, the point sought to be impressed is that there is something to be said on both sides, and the solution, when it arrives, will be found to include the best that is in competition with the best that is in the modern trust method.

It may be a trifle hasty even to say that the trust method has entirely stifled competition, general though that belief may be. The evidences that competition exists to a degree are just as strong as the evidences that it has been effectually destroyed. As a matter of fact-and this has a bearing on the main question

even the trusts find it impossible to get along without competition. It is worth while to look for a moment at a situation which has arisen in England, where privilege is linked with station, wealth and all the other influences possible in a monarchy. These following facts are embodied in a report to this government by Consul Fleming, of Edinburgh. The English and Scotch steel makers had been caught selling steel plates to German shipbuilders at $4.87 a ton less than to British shipbuilders. The shipbuilders of England and Scotland protested, whereupon the discrimination ceased. But so indignant were they that they seriously considered entering into a combine of their own to erect their own steel mills, but internal dissension prevented this. It was then that the German steel trust jumped in and began underselling the English and Scotch mills by $1.22 per ton less than the old proper price, whereupon the imports of German steel doubled at once. Here was competition between trusts, the consumer benefiting. To recover its hold on the trade the British steel trust offered all kinds of concessions to Scotch and English shipbuilders if they would return to the old order of things, but the German trust announces they will cut the price even below the concessions offered. The shipbuilders present an open market and the two trusts are competing for the trade. It is one of the largest plays of competition possible to imagine when one considers the shipbuilding done in the two countries.

So, it can not be so very far off the line to say that the ultimate solution will some way gather up and preserve the effectual prevention of waste in material possible under the trust system, and the prevention of the waste of men which is one of the things that can be said for competition. That the Attorney-General of the United States stands for old-fashioned competition and Theodore Roosevelt for the retention of the present trust method as the only method that can exist, proves that the issue is not at all one-sided.

SUFFRAGE.

(Atlanta Georgian.)

NOTWITHSTANDING the setbacks occasioned by the frenzied acts of some of its advocates, the cause of woman's suffrage continues to score advances. When it is not gaining actual victories at the polls it is adding to its lists of powerful champions.

Senator Robert M. LaFollette is the latest acquisition, and, so far as we recall, is the first politician of national prominence to come out boldly in favor of votes for women. In his campaign speeches in Ohio he swore allegiance as follows:

I say that the women have as much right to the ballot as the men. Do you know that there are 7,000,000 women in this country earning their living by day wages, and they are adding to the wealth of the nation? For this reason they have a moral right to have a voice in the questions of sanitation and all that goes to improve living conditions of the home, which are governed by legislation.

These seven million workers are fighting the bread and meat battle. They are new recruits, but they must fight like veterans in a contest in which no quarter is given.

How does man arm himself for the fray? With organization. and demands, but with both made effective and powerful by the exercise of the ballot.

Woman goes out to meet the same fierce conditions, but as yet armed with neither. When has any people or any class of people been accorded real justice, particular economic justice, while they are without the power to make good their right? In the scratch for a living might still makes right. The ballot is the only check, the only safeguard.

It is pitiably unfair that woman-inexperienced, untrained, physically frail-should be hurried to the firing line without being armed with this the most potent weapon she could have without which man would not fight at all.

The sheltered, protected woman needs the ballot only as an exercise of her broadening intellectual life and of her growing consciousness of civic responsibility, but the working woman needs it as a personal protection.

Battle Bob has another brave achievement to his credit.