On the anniversary of tha naval battle o...

On the anniversary of the naval battle of Santiago the New York Sun perpetrated the following: "This year gives us the first opportunity to celebrate the most memorable July our country has known since its creation. On July 3, a year ago, the Spanish fleet came out from Santiago to accept the battle long systematically arranged for it by Admiral Sampson, and fought by the captains and their men under him with exact observance of orders and terrible precision in gunnery. Within an hour the outcoming fleet was sunk or ashore, with the exception of one ship which surrendered a few hours later."

With its usual studied unfairness the Sun eliminates from the battle the commander who actually directed it. It will be remembered that Admiral Sampson had no hand in the fight when it came off. Upon whom did the command devolve in Sampson's absence? Battle was fought by the captains, eh? Was each captain in charge of an independent command? Who gave the signals and directed the battle? Who said in his report of the engagement, "There is glory enough for all," after Admiral Sampson with something of the spirit of the Sun had claimed it all?

The knock-out of the McLeod law by the supreme court left hizzexcellency too dizzy to know where he is at and he seems not to have recovered yet. It has gone the way of about all the governor's reforms. While there is no occasion to waste any sympathy on Pingree in the matter the principle laid down by the court is one which age should interest the people. Although there may be no occasion for or advant in municipal ownership of the street railways of Detroit at present, the denial of the power of the legislature to grant such authority has danger in it. The occasion might arise when it would be greatly to the advantage of the city to own the street railways. To the layman it looks as though the court strained the constitution mightily to substantiate the doctrine laid down. The difference between the right of municipal ownership of electric lighting plants and water works, and municipal ownership of street railways is not clear. But it appears to be in accorded with the history that the supreme court is making. Nothing relative to the taxation or control of railways in the interest of the people is constitutional. The state should adopt a new constitution in which the people should have some guaranteed rights as well as railroads.

The peace congress which has been sitting at the Hague has, after drawing up a convention for arbitration, adjourned for one week in order that the delegates may consult their respective governments relative to the matter. The scheme provides for a permanent court of arbitration to which each of the signatory powers may name four members. Two or even more nations may appoint the same men to sit upon the commission. The term of membership is six years. The scheme provides for an office of the court at the Hague which shall be in charge of a secretary general which office will serve as the intermediary for communications relative to meetings and also as the custodian of archives and for the management of all administrative affairs.

The extension of the principle of arbitration with some sort of an obligation on the part of the signatory powers to resort to it will probably be about all in the way of tangible results that the congress will accomplish. Even this may not become an accomplished fact but the indications are favorable. If arbitration of international differences becomes an established fact, it will be due in large measure to the United States delegates and those of Great Britain. The American delegate have pushed the matter with tact, ability and persistency. Their efforts have been untiring. It now looks as though their efforts are to be crowned with success.