THE HESPERIAN. UNIVERSITY of NEBRASKA. Vol. XV. LINCOLN, NEB., OCTOBER 22, 1886. No. II "ENTRE NOUS." In the October number of the North American Review there appears an article on "Arbitration" by Prof. Richard T. Ely. Prof. Ely is associate professor of political science at John Hopkins; and is perhaps the most widely informed student in America on the "labor problem," the subject which is now uppermost, among subjects of world-wide in. tcrcst. His treatises on this question arc characterized by a degree of fairness which is seldom found in the writings of others of note whom we could mention; indeed we believe him the least biased writer of the times on all subjects which have to do with the American phase of this problem. In the article mentionad he treats of the intrinsic worth of arbitra tion, and the historical part played by it in the settlement of wage difficulties. He recognizes the true importance of labor organizations in the effort to settle the difficulties by arbitra tion, and laments the fact that such organizations arc not stronger, and less liable to be overthrown by those of their mem bers who do not have at heart the best interests of the labor ing classes. The article is intended to place the method, of arbitration before the people in its proper light, to give it due importance, and we think the task admirably performed. Since the appearance of our last number, the editor of this column has more than once been taken to task for his remarks on the future of the republican party, the signification of its course in the last state convention, and in particular, his well' intended remark about the predicament into which our friend the State Jonrnal has been thrown. It has been intimated in a very confidential and, withal, kind way that we "hadn't better" say anything about politics in our college paper. Well now! we do not wish to be accused of rashness, or being a prohibitionist of the New Republic style, but we do intend to talk politics when we have anything of interest to talk about. Moreover we do believe that college students above all others should be interested and alive to political questions, and problems of government. Wc believe that all live politi cal questions should be studied along with the other allied subjects and sciences. Our universities and colleges are but citizens' training schools; and upon the character of that train ing hangs the destinies of nations; in it lies the only hope of republican governments. The question of prohibition is then ours to discuss, and if the State Journal and the Republican party in this state fail to agree on the question of submission, and we think we have discovered the Journal to be trying to hold an untenable po. sition, we will sound the warning call. Wc believe in prohi bition; and lacking space to discuss it fully, would recom mend all who wish to know some of our reasons for so believ ing to read David R. Lock, Petrolum V. Nasby admiralbc pleafor piohibition, published in the October number of the North American Review. The closing paragraph we deem worthy to be republished here, and is as follows : "Prohibi tion is a certainty in this country, and that within a very few years. Every civilized nation is looking for some cure for the greatest evil that affects the earth. The fact that all countries arc trying to "regulate" it, is an admission 'that it is an evil, and the centuries prcve that there is no sense what ever in trying to regulate an evil. Evils are to be killed, not regulated. The question of today is not whether the individ ual man shall have the right to poison himself, but whether an organization shall have the right by means of a poison to demoralize mankind for profit. It is a question in which every workingman, every employer, every father and every mother in the country has a direct, interest. It is a question whether the law can be made to restrain the criminal maker as well as the criminal, to prevent the manufacture of panpers, instead of supporting paupers; in short, whether the com munity has the right to protect its weaker members against organized demoralization. That communities have this right is the assertion of the prohibitionists, and who. shall say that their position is not impregnable?" It was generally taken for granted that the counsel for the the defendants in the trial of the Chicago anarchists would ap peal from a decision that gave their clients no hope; and it might reasonably be expected that so severe a verdict would be reversed and the judgment mitigated. The refusal of a new trial was, therefore, something of a surprise both to those who wished it,and to those who did not. Nevertheless, though a surprise, the almost unanimous opinion appears to be that it was strictly just. In their defense, and in speeches made be. fore their sentences, the anarchist leaders sought to excite the strongest political prejudice of Americans. Few institutions are regarded with greater jealousy by us than a free press, and wc can scarcely doubt that, could the anarchists convince the public that they were convicted for exercising what is claimed by every American as a sacred right, the force of public opinion would prevent the execution of their sentence. The fact that public opinion ratifies the judgment pronounced shows that pnblic opinion is based on other grounds. It is not for the reasons assigned by the anarchist plotters that they suffer, but because they have violated a trust more sacred than any known to a European. The very fact that the free dom of the individual is so great renders the responsibility greater than under a despotic govarnment. For this reason the American people, while they can well afford to let the effervescence of socialistic feeling dissipate under the sun of a healthy public sentiment, (so long as it remains but effer vesence) must deal out well merited severity to those who seriously attempt to perpetrate their doctrines on American society. A sharp distinction must be drawn between the agi tation of doctrines and the means used to carry on that agi tation. The propogation of socialistic ideas, while distasteful to American sentiment, cannot be condemned so long as car ried on by legal means; in fact a certain species of admiration may be felt for these efforts of the lower class to elevate them selves; but when criminal means are used to further such ideas such means should not share in the toleration given to ths ideas themselves. So we say the sentence of death, while se vere, is just, nor should any false sentiment prompt a pardon. Americans can afford to be lenient to a certain point, but be yond that point punishment should be sharp and decisive.