duplication of the three-year program of 1916, with some modifications, with a view of making the fleet "incomparably the greatest in the world."

In case the Senate took no final action on the treaty at this session of Congress the Secretary said he would present a sixty-nine-ship program for construction as rapidly as possible in order that the United States might not lose ground in competitive naval building. This program, he said, would cost about $195,000,000.

It was announced on March 14 that all three of the provisional programs had been disapproved by. the House Naval Sub-committee, which decided upon an appropriation of $72,000,000 for continuing the unfinished 1916 program as the only ship construction fund to be provided for the next fiscal year.

REPORT ON NAVAL AWARDS

A report of the Senate Naval Affairs Sub-committee, which investigated. the controversy between Admiral Sims and Secretary Daniels over the award of naval honors, was made public in Washington March 7. The majority report, signed by Senators Hale, Poindexter and McCormick, criticised the general policy of awarding honors to commanders who lost their ships, although it found that where such commanders displayed heroic service they should not be made ineligible for honors.

This point had formed one of the bitterest issues between Admiral Sims and Secretary Daniels, and centred upon the fact that Secretary Daniels ignored the recommendations of the board in the case of Commander D. W. Bagley, his brotherin-law. Commander Bagley lost his ship in peculiar circumstances, and was recommended by Admiral Sims and the Knight Board for a Navy Cross. Secretary Daniels awarded him a Distinguished Service medal.

That the controversy might end satisfactorily to officers and men in the navy, the majority recommended that the report of the reconvened Knight Board, now in session, be followed. The board was reconvened late in December, after Admiral Sims attacked the awards, and

began its sessions on Jan. 5. Its report is expected in the next few weeks, and Secretary Daniels has indicated his intention to accept its recommendations as final.

ADMIRAL SIMS TESTIFIES

Admiral Sims, testifying on March 9 and succeeding days before the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs, outlined the specific points on which he based his criticisms. His criticisms, he said, were directed at the policies pursued in the first six months of the conflict, and not at individuals. In calling attention to what he considered failure of the Navy Department to give the Allies full cooperation at first, he said that he had nothing to gain and everything to lose." Only a high sense of his duty as a naval officer and solicitude for the future naval policy of the country, he said, impelled him to point out grave mistakes in naval administration.

66

Basic criticisms of the navy's policies were said by the Admiral to be:

That during the early period of the war the department violated fundamental principles of warfare, leading to a prolongation of hostilities and needless loss of lives and money.

That the policies of the department in the last half of the war were identical with recommendations rejected during the first six months.

That if the department had had its proper plans when the nation entered the war they should have been placed in effect at once.

That mistakes, if any were made, should be carefully reviewed, to avoid a future recurrence and to help mold future national defense policies.

The United States entered the war with the navy unprepared, he said, although war had been a possibility for two years and American forces on the sea were not in the highest state of readiness. Owing to these conditions, the witness added, the navy failed for at least six months to throw its full force against the enemy.

Admiral Sims charged that it was three months after the United States entered the war before he received a statement of the Navy Department's policy; that for seven months the department failed even to answer his

cables with regard to sending battleships and then denied the request, but a month later reversed its position and ordered the Sixth Battle Squadron abroad; that he first urged the dispatch of all available tugs to the war zone on April 23, 1917, but no tugs arrived until a year later, although forty-three were available to the Navy Department the day war was declared, in addition to many owned by private concerns; that although he asked on June 28, 1917, that American submarines be sent to the war zone to help combat U-boats, it was four months before his request was complied with, and then but five submersibles were sent, five more arriving four months later.

On March 18 Admiral Sims, concluding his direct testimony, declared that he had no well founded" recommendations to make as to remedies. This was because responsibility for conditions could only be determined after full investigation of his charges.

PACKERS ENJOINED

The agreed decree under which the "Big Five" packers are forever enjoined from engaging in any line of business other than that of handling meat and meat products was filed Feb. 27 in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Counsel for the packers said in a statement to the court that the decree had been agreed to by the defendants, "not because of guilt, for they have not violated any law, but that the American people may be assured that there is not the remotest possibility of a food monopoly by the packers."

After hearing statements by counsel for the Government and the packers Chief Justice McCoy signed the injunction making effective the agreement.

In a statement commenting on the effect of the divorcement decree Attorney General Palmer said:

The decree, which the Department of Justice has brought about by urgent insistence, is designed to restore freedom of competition and increase the opportunities for individual initiative in business, which must in time bear good fruit for the public welfare.

The decree, which involves reorganization of a great industry with assets of

more than $1,000,000,000, and which affects eighty-seven corporations and forty-nine individuals, results from an agreement between the larger meat packers and the Department of Justice announced on Dec. 18. This agreement was reached after the department, at the direction of President Wilson, had instituted anti-trust proceedings against the packers in Chicago.

LIVING COST SOARING

Reports received by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor from retail dealers in fifty cities and published Feb. 28 indicated that the cost of living was still on the increase. These figures showed an increase of 9 per cent. since January, 1919, and an increase of 104 per cent. since January, 1913. The comparisons were based on the average retail prices of the following articles, weighted according to the consumption of the average family: Sirloin steak, round steak, rib roast, chuck roast, plate beef, pork chops, bacon, ham, lard, hens, flour, cornmeal, eggs, butter, milk, bread, potatoes, sugar, cheese, rice, coffee and tea.

During the month from Dec. 15, 1919, to Jan. 15, 1920, twenty-nine of the forty-four articles of food for which prices were secured in 1919 increased as follows: Cabbage, 33 per cent.; potatoes, 26 per cent.; granulated sugar, 23 per cent.; onions, 11 per cent.; lamb and rolled oats, 8 per cent. each; hens, 7 per cent.; plate beef, 6 per cent.; flour, 5 per cent.; sirloin steak, rib roast, chuck roast, bread and cream of wheat, 4 per cent. each; round steak and raisins, 3 per cent. each; canned salmon and rice, 2 per cent. each; ham, evaporated milk, macaroni, baked beans, tea, coffee and bananas, 1 per cent. each. Bacon, nut margarine, cheese and crisco each increased less than five-tenths of 1 per cent.

Potatoes increased 238 per cent. and granulated sugar 207 per cent. for the seven-year period from January, 1913, to January, 1920. This means that the price in January of this year was more than three times what it was in 1913. The price of nine other articles more than doubled during this period: Pork

chops, 101 per cent.; lamb, 202 per cent.; rice, 110 per cent.; cornmeal, 120 per cent.; lard, 121 per cent.; strictly fresh eggs, 123 per cent.; storage eggs, 143 per cent., and flour, 145 per cent.

NEW FUEL CONTROL

President Wilson on Feb. 28 issued executive orders providing for continuation of the powers of the Fuel Administration, but dividing them between the Director General of Railroads and a commission of four. The commission will be composed of A. W. Howe, Rembrandt Peale, F. M. Whittaker and J. F. Fisher. It will function through the Tidewater Coal Exchange, which had been suspended before the resignation of Dr. Garfield as Fuel Administrator. The order creating the commission is effective until April 30. A second order, investing Mr. Hines with the powers of Fuel Administrator so far as domestic distribution is concerned, said doubt had arisen as to whether he could continue to exercise those powers after the return of the railroads to private control. A new order was therefore issued extending Mr. Hines's authority beyond the date of the return.

Attorney General Palmer announced March 11 that up to date 1,046 actions had been brought against alleged profiteers, hoarders and other violators of the Lever Food Control act. He expressed the opinion that the prosecutions and the activities of the Department of Justice agents in forcing hoarded foodstuffs

upon the market had been instrumental in preventing prices from going above the present level. The Department of Justice announcement added:

Large quantities of foodstuffs have been forced upon the market under proper supervision by means of the procedure prescribed in the Food Control act.

COAL WAGE AWARD

The commission appointed by President Wilson to adjust the differences between operators and miners in the bituminous coal fields offered a majority and minority report on March 11. The former recommended a general wage increase of 25 per cent. without any change in working hours or conditions. The minority report favored 35 per cent. increase and a seven-hour day. Secretary Green of the United Mine Workers said he was satisfied that an agreement would be reached which would prevent further trouble of a serious nature in the coal fields. The increase recommended in the majority report means, in the event of its acceptance, that operators and miners will be called upon by the President to enter into a contract whereby 11 to 12 per cent. will be added to the 14 per cent. increase which was granted to the miners by the operators when the recent coal strike was called off.

Acceptance of the recommendations of the majority will mean an increase in the cost of coal to the consumer sufficient at least to cover the additional 11 or 12 per cent.

however, in securing any provision for a wage increase. Because of this the American Federation of Labor and the four great railway brotherhoods asked the President to veto the bill. They were joined in this request by the Farmers' National Council. The President refused to veto the bill, and also declined to grant their request to appoint a special wage tribunal to pass upon the pending demand for increases in pay. He declared that he believed the board provided for in the bill would not only be fair and just, but would be found to be particularly in the interest of railroad employes as a class.

The tribunal referred to by the President is to be composed of nine members,

ALBERT B. CUMMINS United States Senator from Iowa (Harris & Ewing)

mitted to this board, and also all other disputes not decided by the boards of adjustment which seem likely to result in a substantial interruption of commerce. Decisions by the Railroad Labor Board are to be made by a majority vote, but no decision can be made unless at least one of the members representing the public joins in the decision.

One of the main objections of the railroad unions to the Labor Board created under the new law had been that the representatives of the public would be

prejudiced against labor. The President denied that this would be the case.

The point was made by the President that the Labor Board was required to provide wages commensurate with standards paid for work in other industries, and was also empowered to prescribe sufficient rates to pay for reasonable operating expenses of the railways, including wages. This last statement was taken to mean a hint of coming rate

JOHN J. ESCH Congressman from Wisconsin (Photo Bain News Service)

increases, particularly as a suggestion of that kind was included in the annual report of Director General Hines.

Other features of the law are:

1. A vast extension of the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

2. Competition is encouraged, but the competition is to be between systems rather than individual roads; merging of certain lines into systems is to be allowed.

3. For a period of six months, to Sept. 1, 1920, the railroads are guaranteed operating income equal to their compensation under Government control.

4. For the same period existing wages cannot be reduced, nor can rates be reduced without the approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

5. For a period of two years after March 1,

1920, a return of 5 per cent. plus an additional per cent. for betterments is designated by Congress as a fair return on the value of railroad property.

6. The net indebtedness of a carrier to the Government may be funded at the option of the carrier.

7. One-half of all earnings of individual carriers in excess of 6 per cent. on the ascertained value of their property shall be paid to the Government.

8. A $300,000,000 revolving fund is created to assist the carriers in financing their requirements during the transition period immediately following the relinquishment of Federal control.

The financial and other features of the new law were generally regarded as establishing a solid basis for future justice to investors in railway securities as well as to railway employes and the public.

An illuminating explanation of the meaning of the act was made by Senator Joseph T. Robinson, member of the Conference Committee which fused the Esch and Cummins bills into the present law. Some of the points he brought out may be summarized as follows:

The old rates of fares and transportation charges in effect on Feb. 29, 1920, are to continue in force until changed by the State or Federal authorities, but prior to Sept. 1, 1920, they will not be reducible, except on approval by the Interstate Commerce Commission. One of the main duties of this commission will be to fix and make public a rate representing a fair return commensurate with the aggregate value of the property of all the carriers. A basic rate of 5% per cent. was fixed by Congress, but the commission was empowered to add to this maximum 2 per cent. to cover improvements or expenses of equipment.

Whatever rate shall be fixed will not bind the Government to guarantee any deficit ensuing from the application of the rate established. The rate assigned will be based wholly on the real value of the property held and used for transportation, and will have no relation to holdings of stocks and bonds.

Of all net earnings in excess of 6 per cent., one-half is to be set aside as a reserve fund for the carriers, usable only when such fund totals 5 per cent. of total value; the other half is to be paid to the