pewter, and brass. One traces the course of American art from the objects imported by the colonists from England and Holland to those representing independent native design. As a record of our art the Bolles collection is of immense value to the Museum.

A ROTARY EXHIBITION

Five years ago Mr. J. C. Nicoll, the well-known painter, became President of the American Water-Color Society. He had long wanted to give a wider purpose to the labor and expense of bringing together the Society's annual exhibition, held in New York City for a few weeks at the end of the season. Thanks to the cooperation of Professor Halsey Ives, Director of the St. Louis Museum of Fine Arts, a plan was arranged. By it certain art institutions and museums of the Middle West have sent a representative to New York to select, with the aid of a resident committee, about a hundred and fifty canvases from the annual exhibition. Thus a doubly selected collection has been assured. It was also assured at a minimum expense. Each of the Western institutions pays its proportionate share. The American Water-Color Society simply provides the machinery by which the plan is carried out, and receives no return beyond the satisfaction of doing something for the benefit of American art. In addition to the pictures from the WaterColor Society, to fill vacancies caused by sales, about twenty-five works from the New York Water-Color Club are selected at the end of the year. Usually about

one-fifth of the works sent have been sold. Of course, in order that the full number of pictures chosen by the jury may be maintained, all entries must be made for the entire period; also artists must replace the works sold, if requested to do so. This is the scheme by which a 66 rotary exhibition" of water-colors has been held in the principal cities of the United States. Such a novel feature in art education has, we are glad to say, excited corresponding enthusiasm. For instance, at St. Louis, some weeks ago, no less than fifteen thousand persons visited the gallery in three hours. People naturally like to take advantage of an opportunity to see, not the ordinary exhibition, but a notable

The rotary The year's

show of the year's best work. exhibition is now at Toledo. itinerary includes, besides the above cities, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Detroit, Chicago, and Columbia, Missouri. The scheme has resulted in so much interest that other institutions in other cities than those on the present list have applied for inclusion in the itinerary; hence Mr. Nicoll and his fellow-directors are now considering the advisability of lengthening their present schedule of one year so as to include the other institutions and cities. In connection with its two annual exhibitions the National Academy of Design might well follow this plan. If water-colors have been a popular success, oils would infallibly be an equal success.

THE POLICE POLICY OF
MAYOR GAYNOR

On the date of this issue of The Outlook William J. Gaynor succeeds George B. McClellan as Mayor of the city of New York. That Mr. Gaynor is to be Mayor for the next four years is due in part to his attitude toward the vital question of police administration. He owed his nomination, if not his election, in no small degree to the part he took in the proceedings which resulted in the dismissal of Commissioner Bingham, the most efficient head the Police Department of New York ever had. It was because he asserted that the police under Commissioner Bingham had been arbitrary and tyrannical in the case of a Brooklyn boy that he won popular approval in certain quarters which furthered the movement for his nomination. Since, therefore, as Mayor Mr. Gaynor will be called upon to justify himself in no one particular more than in his management of the Police Department, it is of consequence that those who wish to understand Mr. Gaynor's administration should understand the police principles he avows. Still further, since the police furnishes one of the most difficult and delicate problems of American municipal government, these principles should be known to all who are concerned with the improvement of government in any American city.

Elsewhere in this issue Mr. George W. Alger, a member of the New York

bar, whose writings in The Outcok and the "Atlantic Monthly" and in book form on the relation of law to social problems in America have been marked by poise, vigor, and progressiveness, explains the views for which Mr. Gaynor stands. He finds that these views are based on certain fundamental principles of liberty which, after many life-and-death struggles, have become embedded in the political institutions of English-speaking peoples. Mr. Gaynor and his course could have found no abler defense than is furnished by this paper.

The principles, expressed in maxims upholding the right of citizens to be free from arbitrary arrest, to be secure in their houses, and to be at liberty to gather and speak their minds, are not in these days to be questioned. That the police have, on occasions, violated these fundamental principles we do not doubt. But we do most strongly deny that the way by which the principles can best be put into practice is by cultivating sentimental sympathy with the accused, by allowing indiscriminate assemblage, and by creating public distrust and suspicion of the police. The remedy for police abuses lies in other directions.

In the first place, the remedy is not to be obtained through sentimental sympathy with the lawbreaker or any class of lawbreakers. The sentimentalist sees the individual before him, but he does not see society; he is concerned for the comfort of the visible prisoner, while he forgets the security of the invisible but equally real mass of men and women and children. The processes of law, which had their origin at a time when government was irresponsible, and therefore governmental authority was naturally regarded as tyrannical, provide a safeguard for the accused that is stronger than the weapon they provide for a wronged and endangered community. If sympathy is to be exhibited at all, it should be on behalf of society. The peril to society to-day in American cities is not from a too strong government; it is from a government not strong enough to cope with the criminal and anarchic forces which exist in every great city on the Continent.

In the second place, the remedy for the unwise suppression of public speech is not

in wholesale and indiscriminate permission of assemblage and discussion in streets and public places. The principle of free speech does not entitle any group of people to speak where and how they will. It may have been unwise or impolitic to prohibit a particular gathering in Union Square, but it was not violative of the right of free speech or assemblage. The repression of free speech or assemblage is one thing; the prevention of indiscriminate gathering and talking in places devoted to traffic or recreation is quite another. When the police cease to regulate traffic in the street, and to exercise discretion in keeping order in public parks or squares, they will be grievously impaired as an instrument of social service.

Finally, the remedy for police abuse will not come in creating public suspicion and distrust of the police. So far from remedying such abuse, distrust and suspicion can only tend to increase it. One reason, for example, why the testimony of policemen is not regarded with more confidence in American courts is that the police have been taught by the American people themselves to have little respect for their own word. Policemen are human, and if they were treated in courts with the respect to which their position as defenders of the public safety entitles them, they would be more trustworthy. The way to make the police less arbitrary and tyrannical is to make them more efficient. He who expects to minimize the evils of police tyranny by weakening the police force is going the wrong way to work. It is only by making the individual policeman really subordinate to his nominal superiors, by making the tenure of office of those who are in command over the police more secure than that of those who obey, and by making the police sufficiently powerful to be efficient and then absolutely responsible to the people whom they serve, that the city will secure a force that will put fear into the hearts of only evil-doers. The remedy for the occasional evils which Mr. Alger describes is not a weakened police force nor constant interference with the work of the police by the courts, but a police responsible to its commander-in-chief, and a commander-in-chief equally resolute to protect private rights and to insure public order and safety.

MR. GLADSTONE

On Wednesday of this week is celebrated the hundredth anniversary of the birth of William Ewart Gladstone. In a later number of The Outlook the British Ambassador to the United States, Mr. James Bryce, will give our readers an article of personal reminiscence and political estimate. Meanwhile we may here briefly point out some of the things which made Gladstone a statesman rather than a mere political leader.

A politician rarely looks beyond the next election: immediacy his end, expediency his guide. The statesman is a man both of vision and of principle; he is farsighted, seeing the end from the beginning, and in the endeavor to secure that end he is guided by fundamental principles. Gladstone was a Christian statesman because throughout his career Christian achievement was his end and Christian principle his guide. The contrast between Gladstone and Disraeli was graphically described by "Punch" in a famous cartoon in which Gladstone's great rival was portrayed as skillfully balancing himself upon a tight rope.

No one would have dreamed

of so cartooning Gladstone.

Early in his career he discovered the signs of the times-the irresistible rise of a not unguidable democracy and the not distant demise of 2 senile and enfeebled feudalism. An aristocrat by birth and breeding, and always an aristocrat in his tastes, he left the party of aristocracy to devote himself to the cause of the common people. His aristocratic contemporaries never forgave him, and he remained throughout his life the most hated as well as the best loved man in English politics. An aristocrat, he became the leader of democracy; a gentleman of culture, he became the representative of the unlettered and the ignorant; a Protestant, he became the emancipator of Roman Catholics; a High Churchman, he became the political partner of the Nonconformists; in every fiber of his being Anglo-Saxon, he became the defender of equal rights for the Irish. He resigned public office when to his contemporaries his resignation did not seem to be required by principle and did seem both to them and to him to involve the end of his political career. The causes which he

espoused were generally unpopular when he espoused them and became popular through his espousal. Americans find it difficult to comprehend the hysteria of public wrath which was visited upon him because he advocated the disestablishment of the Protestant Church in Roman Catholic Ireland and some measure of local self-government for the Irish in their own island. In espousing the extension of the suffrage to the common people and the extension of popular education to prepare them for it he knew, as did his opponents, that he was dealing a death-blow to the archaic institutions of feudalism which England had inherited from the past. As his spirit of humanity overleaped all caste and class lines, so also all geographical and national lines. To the eloquence of his impassioned appeal against the atrocities of King Bomba scarcely less than to the diplomacy of Cavour, the statesmanship of Ferdinand, and the sword of Gavazzi does Italy owe her emancipation.

Our prejudices are the enemies we find it most difficult to conquer. In urging the admission of Jews to Parliament and the submission of the Alabama claims to arbitration Mr. Gladstone conquered prejudices which he shared with his fellowcountrymen. It was this victory over his own prejudices which gave color to the statement of one critic, "Gladstone's method of impartiality is to be furiously on both sides of a question." It was his recognized devotion to principle that led a more friendly and a more discerning critic to say of him: "His religious opinions, in which he is zealous and sincere, enter so largely into his political conduct as to form a very serious obstacle to his success, for they are abhorrent to the majority of this Protestant country." That majority he led, not by falling in with their prejudices, but by overcoming them.

Abraham Lincoln left as his monument a reunited Nation and an emancipated race; Bismarck, a great Germanic Empire, made by the fusion into one nationality of jealous and sometimes bitterly hostile provinces; Cavour, an Italy rescued by skillful diplomacy from intolerable bondage and restored to something like its early national life. Gladstone left no such single monument. But he left to England as the fruitage of his life the fol

lowing achieved reforms, in all of which he took a prominent part, most of which would not have been accomplished in his century but for his life:

The emancipation of the Roman Catholics.

The admission of Jews to Parliament. The abolition of religious tests in the universities.

The extension of the suffrage.

The disestablishment of the English Church in Ireland.

taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," subject to three qualifications: (1) Direct taxes must be apportioned according to population; (2) no duties can be imposed on articles exported from any State; (3) all duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform throughout the United States. The corporation tax is uniform throughout the United States because it is levied equally on all corporations in all the States. It is not imposed on articles exported from any State. The only question re

Popular education.

International arbitration.

The liberation of Italy.

The impulse toward that constitutional government in Turkey which he did not live to see accomplished.

And, what is more important than all else, a life so pure, a patriotism so unselfish, a humanity so broad, a courage so undaunted, and all sustained and inspired by a religious faith so simple and sincere, that the story of his life will long remain a rebuke to the cynic and an inspiration to the faithful-a demonstration not to be gainsaid that the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule are not an iridescent dream in the politics of a democracy.

THE CORPORATION TAX

It is the custom of The Outlook to give to its readers the ablest presentation it can secure on both sides of publicly debated questions; it is also its custom to accompany such presentation with its own opinion frankly and briefly stated. It accordingly, on November 20 last, gave to its readers, in an article from the pen of Mr. Charles W. Pierson, an able legal argument against the constitutionality of the Federal Corporation Tax; and it presents in this issue an able argument from the pen of Mr. Hugh A. Bayne in support of the constitutionality of that tax. It leaves its legal readers to compare these two articles and to come to their own judgment upon the issue involved. But it here states, for the benefit of its lay readers, the reason why it agrees with Mr. Bayne's opinion that the tax is Constitutional.

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress power "to levy and collect

can be regarded as a direct tax which must be levied according to population. As the corporation tax is not a tax on property, but "a special tax with respect to the carrying on or doing business by such corporation," we do not believe that it will be held by the courts to be a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitutional limitation..

This brief and therefore necessarily inadequate statement may serve the purpose of such of our readers as do not desire to go into this question more fully. But we hope that it will have the effect to send most of them to a careful reading of the full, clear, and convincing statement of Mr. Bayne.

THE LARGER REASON There has been a good deal of arrogant dogmatism in some of the men who have been upholders of the Christian view of life, and there was justification for Professor Huxley's pugnacious declaration. that the corpses of theologians are piled high around the cradle of every science. It has become the habit of many people to assume that dogmatism is the exclusive possession of religious people, and openminded intellectual integrity and courage the characteristics of those who reject Christianity. This assumption of the superior honesty and intelligence of skeptics and agnostics has so imposed on many believers in Christianity that they hold the faith in an apologetic spirit, as if there were a trace of intellectual inferiority in accepting the Christian creed and interpretation of a life. A man of intellectual distinction who counted himself an agnostic said, not long ago, of an equally distinguished man who was an ardent

Christian, "I don't see how it is possible for so able a man to believe the fairy-tale of Christianity. He cannot be entirely sincere." This assumption that a man or woman of superior intelligence must be a skeptic overshadows the faith of many good people and blights its radiancy.

and

It is well to remind ourselves from time to time that Christianity is not the refuge of those who lack the courage to face the facts of life or the comforting fairy-story of half-educated men women who have not discovered that they are pinning their faith to traditions which the wise and brave have abandoned. It is true that there has been a good deal of arrogant dogmatism among theologians, but the scientists of a kindred type of mind have developed an equally insolent temper toward those who differ from them; and it has been often remarked that those who lay great claim to liberalism are often conspicuous for narrowness and dogmatism. The attitude of intellectual superiority taken by some men and women who regard themselves as emancipated from popular errors is as arrogant and baseless as was the dogmatic assertion of infallibility on the part of some of the older theologians; there is a great deal of intellectual pretension combined with shallowness of knowledge and of thinking among those who reject Christianity on the ground that it is, for men and women of intelligence and intellectual power, an outgrown superstition.

For honest doubt every honest man, whatever his creed or lack of creed, must have the greatest respect. Honest doubt involves intellectual life, vital interest, a stirring of the spirit, and is far better than indolent acceptance or the acquiescence which is merely falling into the way of thinking of one's family or the sentiment of one's neighborhood. But the honest doubter does not make a virtue of his doubt and wear it as a sign of intellectual superiority. He is a reluctant doubter, and far from eager to destroy the faith of others. His attitude is that of the son who goes sorrowfully out of his father's house because it seems to him no longer habitable; he does not advertise the decay of the home of his spirit,

nor is he eager to make other people as homeless as himself. The doubters of this temper have something to say which cannot be ignored; they raise questions which the honest believer must face with kindred frankness and courage.

But the assumption of the intellectual superiority of doubt over faith is born of another spirit, and is pure arrogance; it ought not to chill any man's faith or blight any woman's hope. It has no claim to recognition as something to be reckoned with; it has no authority to challenge belief as if it were the custodian of truth. There are fundamental differences of view about those things on which Christianity builds its faith; there is room for honest questioning of belief in a loving Father, an ordered moral world, personal immortality; but it is sheer arrogance to assume that the religious view of life is so entirely on the defensive that those who hold it must explain how faith can be reconciled with intelligence. The time has not yet come when the love of God and loyalty to Christ must be accepted as badges of intellectual inferiority. The evidence of God's love and care is not yet relegated to the custody of those who believe without investigation and put aside their intelligence in order that they may ease their hearts.

The Gospel is for the poor and needy, and there are none so poor and needy as those who reject it because they think they have outgrown it intellectually. It is often revealed to the obscure and lowly because it reveals itself through the vital experiences of life and proves its reality by fulfilling its promises of light and help in the great crises of life. But it is justified in the court of reason, and faith rests squarely and solidly on the largest and most courageous use of reason, not in the narrow sense in which some so-called rationalists use that word, but in its largest and most inclusive meaning-the full play of all the human faculties, the full reach of all human knowledge. A deep and vital faith is the affirmation of the entire nature of man-his heart, his brain, his knowledge, his experience, his intuitions, his divinations, the revelations of his vision in the divinest moments of his life.