chinery erected makes that will effective. The discussions and the consequent treaties at Locarno not only express a new disposition but foster and promote it. This is something that could not be imposed upon the nations of Europe by any superior force. The effort to organize the world to enforce peace upon Europe did not and could not succeed. The European nations had to work out their own salvation. Although the agreements made at Locarno contain references to

the League of Nations, they were produced outside of the League and they are valid without the League. When the League attempted to impose security upon Europe by means of a Protocol, the nations rebelled, but what they refused to do under compulsion they have mutually agreed to do voluntarily.

At the same time the Locarno agreements have materially strengthened the League as an agent for preserving the balance of power against war in Europe. Similarly they have given new support to the Permanent Court of International Justice and have established more firmly than ever the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The force of these agreements, however, does not reside in their appeal either to the League or to the Court or to the Convention, but in the measure of good faith with which they will be observed.

Not one of these agreements is any stronger or more explicit than the treaty which made Belgium neutral and supposedly inviolate; and yet Germany, when she thought victory was in her grasp, broke her word and tore up her bond. There should be no illusion about Locarno; but in so far as Germany has learned, and by her experience has taught the rest of the world, that infidelity brings retribution there is a sound basis in the Locarno agreements for hope and confidence.

Now that Europe seems to be getting together, America should look to her diplomacy. The United States is rich (or is thought to be) and unpopular. Creditors are not usually loved. America's business is to avoid everything which will tend to make the European Powers pool their interests in opposition to the interests of America. We have interests in common with every one of the countries in the Locarno agreement. It is the task of American statesmanship to make clear that, whatever the conflicting interests may be, the common inter

ests of America with Europe are para

mount.

Reclaiming Reclamation

T

HERE is nothing new about Reclamation. Among the ancient remains of man's industry are the dams and ditches that people of old constructed to bring water to arid lands. When President Roosevelt made Reclamation in the West one of his out

standing policies, he was simply establishing in America something that had been tested by the experience of mankind. If his recommendations had been followed by Congress, the difficulties which are now threatening the whole policy of Reclamation with disaster would have been avoided.

It is useless to cry over spilled milkor wasted water. What has been unwisely done cannot now be undone. Much of it can be abandoned and the cost charged to experience, or politics, or profit and loss, or what you will. Some of it can be bettered by the spending of more money. Most of all, the repetition of those errors can be avoided if Congress will have the sense and take the time to change the Reclamation laws. No time need be spent in finding out what needs to be done. That has been very well found out by the fact-finding committee appointed by Secretary Work. The members of that Committee were: Thomas E. Campbell, former Governor of Arizona,

send for Senate document No. 92 of the Sixty-eighth Congress, first session,

It would be well at the outset to remove from the minds of the suspicious the idea that the policy of Reclamation as such has been under attack. This Report makes clear

That Reclamation is not a failure;

That the Federal water users are not trying to repudiate their just debts to the Government;

That there has been no engineering inefficiency and no corruption.

What that board of fact-finders has discovered and what it recommends we shall discuss at a later time. In the meanwhile it would be well for citizens to suggest to their Representatives and Senators that they unearth this Report and read it—if not all of it, at least the President's Message on the subject, the Committee's Letter of Transmittal, and the first twenty-eight pages of the Report.

This will be profitable occupation for some of the hours that Representatives and Senators will have at their disposal before Congress meets on the first Monday in December.

If it will, Congress can reclaim Reclamation.

Oscar E. Bradfute, former President of the American Farm Bureau Federation,

Clyde C. Dawson, former President of the Colorado Bar Association and a specialist in irrigation law,

Elwood Mead, irrigation engineer and Director of the Reclamation Service,

John A. Widtsoe, former President of the University of Utah and authority on dry farming and irrigation.

Their report is unanimous.

It has lain in the archives of the Senate for a year and a half. It will stay there unnoticed for a century and a half unless the people of the country who do not want their money wasted and who do not want unjust conditions to continue over a large area wake Congress up to its duty.

Those who want to inform themselves on this subject can do no better than to

visioned railroad genius of the Northwest believed in making a dollar spent bring back a dollar of actual service.

America, if it is to reconsider its present system of supporting a governmental merchant marine and to adopt a plan of subsidization ought not to forget the advice of Mr. Hill.

We never want (as happened not so very long ago) to have a ship go from France to Seattle and back to France in ballast and make a profit on the voyage. It was an outstanding figure in the business world who stated not long ago that "Americans are willing to pay for a deficit. They will not stomach a subsidy." If the payment of a deficit really amounts to the payment of a subsidy, will America long continue to be fooled by the name of the thing? It is time that we stopped consoling ourselves by the use of misleading names and wok the facts.

T

HE nearly four hundred delegates who attended the Atlantic City Convention of the American Federation of Labor during the two weeks ending October 16 might truthfully be characterized as "veterans." There were scarcely any young men among them.

Twenty-one years ago I attended my first Convention of the Federation in Pittsburgh. I was thrilled by the fire and enthusiasm of the men who made up that body. Samuel Gompers was in his prime. He held the turbulent Socialists by the sheer force of his personality. It was at that Convention that he dared throttle their discussion of the annually introduced "Socialistic resolution" by plainly declaring the whole proceeding out of order because they were debating “a political question," which, he said, was against the rules of the Federation. It was the beginning of his open warfare against the "radical element"-the "Reds"-in the American labor movement.

At the Atlantic City Convention it was apparent that the dead leader's task had been well done there wasn't the slightest trace of radicalism. The Socialists have been completely silenced. The "Reds" had about as much chance for recognition as a Chinaman.

American Workers and the Reds

WIL

ILLIAM GREEN, the successor of Samuel Gompers-who died immediately following the El Paso Convention last year is fully as conservative as his predecessor, although the Miners' Union, of which he had been the Secretary for some years, is classed among the more radical labor organizations of this country.

Mr. Green's position became apparent early in the Convention. One of the fraternal delegates from the British Trades Union Congress, Albert A. Purcell, a member of Parliament, President of the International Federation of Trade Unions, and the last President of the British Trades Union Congress, had made a fine plea for the spirit of world brotherhood among the workers of every land. In the course of his address he

By CHARLES STELZLE

quite incidentally included the tradeunionists of Russia as being worthy of greater consideration than had been given them because of the fact that the Russian trade-union movement which he had in mind had been confused with the "Red Internationale." He made no reference whatever to the latter labor group, but had in mind the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions, which is comparable with the British Trades Union Congress and the American Federation of Labor, and is now no longer a part of the Soviet Government, but rather quite independent in its economic activities.

However, when Mr. Green responded, he said:

"We in America know something about the teachings of Communism and the control the Communist Party exercises over the so-called Russian Internationale. . . . We know that here in America that influence emanating from Moscow is seeking, as it has always sought, not to co-operate with us but to capture and control us." Mr. Green stated that it had been the policy of this radical Russian organization to "bore within the labor movement to destroy it and substitute for our philosophy the philosophy of Communism." And then he continued:

We are not ready to accept that,. and we wish that our friend who has so kindly advised us and has offered us such kind suggestions might take back to the Russian Internationale movement this message: that the American labor movement will not affiliate with an organization which preaches that doctrine or stands for that philosophy.

At this point of Mr. Green's address the delegates arose and vigorously applauded. It was quite apparent that Mr. Purcell's message and suggestion had been misunderstood both by Mr. Green and the delegates.

I recalled during this discussion that while attending the British Trades Union Congress at Hull last year I watched with much interest the heckling of Mr. Purcell by the "Reds" because of his own opposition to their policies. I questioned Mr. Purcell after the Atlantic City ex

perience, and, while he admitted that many of the members of the "Red Internationale" in Russia were identified with the more conservative body of tradeunionists, they by no means controlled the latter organization.

Toward the end of the Convention the American Federation of Labor came out strongly in favor of a "Monroe Doctrine" for organized labor in America. A resolution approved by the Convention declared that

The American Federation of Labor is willing at all times to join with the free labor movements of other countries for the promotion and protection of the interests of the toiling masses. It will not lend its support to any movement to destroy from ambush the freedom of the workers of democratic countries. . . .

Furthermore, we convey to the world the most solemn warning of which we are capable, that we will not willingly tolerate in the Western Hemisphere any Old World movement which seeks to impose itself upon the American peoples over the will of those peoples. What the United States Government through President Monroe expressed to Europe against armed territorial aggression we convey in equally emphatic terms regarding aggression by propaganda.

The New World is dedicated to human freedom. We want all the world to be free, and we shall help to that end whenever possible. But, above all, and beyond all, we shall preserve and develop the freedom of the Americas.

In a strongly worded declaration the Federation declared itself to be unequivocally opposed to every form of "autocracy, bureaucracy, dictatorship, whether brutal or benevolent," to revolution, and to "the teaching of revolution by violence wherever democracy exists and where the people have the power to modify or change their government through the use of constitutional means." It also specifically denounced the whole Communist philosophy which is superimposed upon the Russian Soviet Government, closing with the statement, "We stand for democratic America, and we want the world to understand that fact"-all of which

met with the practically unanimous approval of the delegates.

The Veteran and the Vote

THE

HE 388 delegates represented 95 international and National unions, four departments, 25 State branches, 56 central bodies, 21 local, trade, and Federal labor unions, and seven fraternal delegates. The international unions are entitled to one vote for every one hundred members, and with the individual votes cast, to which all other delegates are entitled, there was a total of 28,332 votes in the Convention, but the majority of these votes were in the hands of 57 delegates who represented nine of the leading international unions.

While most questions are decided by a viva voce vote, the 57 delegates who represented fifteen per cent of the total number of votes cast could control the Convention on a roll-call, the method by which all important questions are determined. With reference to the first paragraph of this article, in which the delegates are characterized as "veterans," it is interesting to note that the delegates representing the big international unions, whose votes control the Convention, are all "old-timers," and in practically every case are the most conservative delegates. in the Convention. To many this means that the action of the Federation is predetermined by safe and sane policies, while to others it indicates that the Federation needs "young blood" in order to give it the fire of former days.

W

Inter-Union Conflicts

HILE there is always very deter

mined opposition to the "one big union" idea, the tendency is steadily in that direction, as is evidenced by the fact that in the Miners' Union, for example, which is the most powerful organization in the Federation, all workers in and about the mines, no matter what their trade may be, are affiliated with the Miners' Union. The same thing is true of the brewery workers, and of some of the smaller organizations. The Teamsters' Union needs to fight for its very life at successive conventions, because those engaged in this occupation are

Railway Clerks from the Federation. It indicates, however, the courage with which the Convention usually acts when it seems to them the right course is plainly marked out.

There is no question which troubles organized labor more than that of jurisdiction given to the various international unions, and it is the cause of many widespread strikes, particularly in the building trades and other highly specialized industries in which separate unions are organized-for example, the recent controversy among the bricklayers and plasterers, which resulted in the almost

P. & A. Photos

William Green

complete shutting down of the building industry in our larger cities.

It is an axiom, however, that jurisdictional disputes cannot be settled by forfeiting charters, enforcing decisions, or compelling men to join a union against their wishes, and, ordinarily, jurisdictional matters are largely permitted to adjust themselves through evolutionary processes. It is felt by the leaders that very frequently both sides are equally right.

Comfort and Culture

which they are employed.

The Atlantic City Convention conditionally suspended the Railway Clerks' Union, which has a membership of 160,000, because they refused to permit the teamsters who had become affiliated with their organization to join the Teamsters' Union, although repeatedly ordered to do so by the Federation. This action may result in the complete separation of the

of the Federation during recent years, and particularly at the Atlantic City Convention, was with reference to the Workers' Education Bureau, to which the Federation is thoroughly committed. Addressing the Convention on this subject, Spencer Miller, Jr., the Secretary of the Bureau, stated that, whereas six years ago there were scarcely a dozen workers' educational enterprises

in a half-dozen industrial centers, to-day there are upwards of 300 workers' colleges and study classes in well over 200 centers. In 225 industrial centers, Mr. Miller said, there are permanent educational committees of the central labor bodies, and he also pointed out that a resident labor college has been founded under labor control, to provide a more intensive course for trade-unionists in the problems, policies, and tactics of organized labor, and that already in this resident college an investment of $100,000 has been made to provide an equipment adequate for its need.

During the last summer nine distinct summer schools and labor institutes were provided for working men and women in different parts of the country. In the various educational centers there were enrolled approximately 35,000 workers during the past year, and over 300,000 trade-unionists had been provided with mass education of one kind or anotherby illustrated lectures in union halls, addresses, and debates on industrial subjects. The Workers' Education Bureau has prepared a Workers' Bookshelf, which serves as the basis of this educational movement for workingmen.

It is becoming increasingly evident at these conventions of the Federation that the American workingman has passed through the age of the pioneer, when his chief concern was merely getting enough to eat, a house to live in, and clothes to wear. He is interested not only in making a living but in making a life, and yet while American workingmen are undoubtedly the best-paid workingmen in the world, living more bounti

fully than do the workers in other lands, perhaps being more skilled in many respects, their understanding and culture have not kept pace with their increasing knowledge. The Workers' Education Bureau is therefore one of the most significant of the branches of the life of the Federation. The Federation assessed its various international, State, and local bodies for the support of this movement. This is the first time that such action has been taken with reference to an educational campaign.

There was no doubt in the mind of the Convention regarding the fitness of William Green to become Mr. Gompers's successor. He is quite different from Mr. Gompers in his qualities as a leader. Mr. Green is magnetic; Mr. Gompers was dynamic. Mr. Gompers rarely smiled-he presided with great solemnity. Mr. Green, while always dignified, wins through his pleasing smile, even in the midst of the greatest confusion. Mr. Gompers's speech was often slow and halting. Mr. Green speaks in a steady,

Mr. Gompers was rarely without a cigar between his lips as he presided. Mr. Green apparently does not smoke at all. Mr. Gompers was thoroughly opMr. Gompers was thoroughly opposed to the Eighteenth Amendment. Mr. Green, as a member of the Illinois Legislature, voted for the passage of the Prohibition Bill. Mr. Gompers was a Jew, although not regarded as very orthodox. Mr. Green is an active member of the Baptist Church.

It will be interesting to note what effect holding the Presidency of the American Federation of Labor will have upon the new leader. There is no doubt that, while he will not need to make the kind of fight Mr. Gompers made during the forty years of his leadership, the problems that will face Mr. Green will be far more complex because of the rapidly changing world conditions in the field of labor and the absolute necessity for America's active participation in world movements of every kind. To assume merely a negative attitude would be unworthy of American leadership.

L

OCARNO is an old town. It is at the head of Lake Maggiore, the largest of the Italian lakes except Garda. Perhaps Maggiore is also the most beautiful. Opinions differ. It has not such rugged, dramatic shores as have Lakes Como, Lugano, or Garda's upper reaches. But, like Leman, compared with other Swiss lakes, so Maggiore, compared with other Italian lakes, has a special splendor all its own.

Its extreme northern end lies, not in Italy, but in Switzerland, in the Swiss Italian-speaking canton of Ticino. There are not many Swiss towns on this lovely shore; there is not enough room for many. But you could hardly find more attractive places than Brissago, Ronco, Ascona, Locarno.

At this season of the year Locarno is specially pleasant. The mountains protect it from the occasional harsh autumn winds. The hills are colorful and odorous with yellow and red leaves and ripe grapes, and one enjoys here to his heart's content the justly famed grape cure without too great a strain on the portemonnaie. The region is well supplied with hotels. Here at Locarno there are some two dozen, little and big. Each seems clean with a characteristic Swiss cleanliness, and each seems simpatico, as the Italians like to say. The hotels are now having such a run of trade as they have never before experienced, because of the sudden presence of a very large number of persons here attracted by the Conference of Foreign Ministers.

"The good qualities of Locarno are all very well," says a sharp-eyed, sharpnosed friend, "but there must have been

The Outlook's Editor in Europe another and a particular reason for choosing it as the place for this Conference. Last month we were told, you remember, that the Conference would be held in Switzerland, a neutral state. Most of us immediately jumped at Lausanne as being the most likely place; it is on a main railway route and has a well-earned reputation as a Conference city. Then some one suggested Berne as not improbable, because it would please the Germans more. On this another suggested Lucerne as still more apt to please them. Another man suggested Lugano, in the Swiss canton of Ticino, on this side of the Alps, as bound to suit the Italians in general and Mussolini in particular. Another man suggested Locarno as apt to suit them more because it is a shade nearer the Italian border." Whether for this or for other reasons, Locarno was finally chosen.

The present Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Belgium, England, and an ex-Foreign Minister of Italy are here, with the present Foreign Ministers of Poland and Czechoslovakia coming later. We have a curious mixture of psychologies among them. If one looks for opportunists, the German, Stresemann, especially after his talk to us of the press yesterday, appears in the front rank, with the Frenchman, Briand, a very long distance in the rear. Among the stronger and more consistent sort, the Englishman, Austen Chamberlain, seems easily first; the Italian, Scialoja, second; and the Belgian Socialist, Vandervelde, a considerable distance away. But these are only approximate definitions.

More to the point is the query: "Why did the German Foreign Minister make his proposal of February 9 last to the French Foreign Minister?" It has resulted in a memorable exchange of notes between Germany and France, and also between France and other Powers. The question may be answered, I think, by reporting what comes up in familiar intercourse with Germans here as to their real reasons for desiring the present Conference. Among those reasons I find the following:

(1) Germany wants security against another Ruhr invasion.

(2) Germany wants to see the Cologne area evacuated, not to mention all of the Rhine's left bank.

(3) Germany wants a local Parliament for the Sarre territory.

(4) Germany wants, most of all, to break down the Versailles Treaty's authority on her eastern and southern front.

(5) Germany wants to efface Article 231 of this Treaty, the one fastening the war guilt on her and her allies.

(6) Germany wants to see a general armament reduction outside her borders to balance that inside.

(7) Germany wants the League of Nations to grant colonial mandates to her.

(8) Germany wants to see in America the certainly favorable effects of the proposed security pact; she hopes to obtain correspondingly ample credit from American bankers.

(9) Germany wants also to see the equally favorable effect of the pact on the establishment and maintenance of

great international trusts as the best method of insuring the world's economic balance.

A week before the announced convening of the Conference the German Government proposed discussion of Article 231 and the Cologne evacuation as subjects for the agenda. These proposals were instantly and peremptorily rejected by the Powers.

brought down the delegates from their rosy clouds to the rough ground of reality."

The French Premier was constructive, however; he showed that, despite the non-ratification of the Protocol by a sufficient number of Powers, its spirit survives in the regional pacts proposed. "The Protocol, like the project of mutual assistance the year before, admits the

To be sure, on one side of security lies arbitration as an interdependent matter, and on the other side lies armament reduction. As is well known, Germany is pressing all three issues.

The question arose on this first day of the Conference whether any regional pact, such as is here proposed, will in the end bring greater justice and peace than would have come through the general pact, the Protocol, proposed last year at the Assembly of the League of Nations, certainly the most ambitious attempt yet made to assure world-wide arbitration, security, and armament reduction. It contemplated a far wider measure of justice and peace than is contemplated at Locarno.

Now, neither in Geneva nor here have I met any critics despising or disdaining the Protocol's moral value. All are practically agreed in respecting its principles. They differ only as to the methods of carrying them out. One often hears that the delegates at last year's League Assembly unanimously favored all the items of the Protocol. This is not true. The Assembly simply confined itself to sending the Protocol to all the Governments, recommending them to give it their most serious attention. Signor Motta, the eminent Swiss-Italian statesman, confirms this and adds, "Had the League delegations been asked to bind themselves in the sense of approving all the items, we would have seen abstentions."

Another statesman ruminates as follows: "Well, what are you going to do if you cannot agree on methods? You must agree on methods as well as on principles to accomplish anything. The League has proved its usefulness in covering social, humanitarian, administrative, economic, and financial subjects. But it has not succeeded in putting through a practical, obstacle-proof plan to settle the greatest political questions.” Another thus sums up: "In his Assembly inaugural address M. Painlevé indicated one reason why the League has not so succeeded. 'The League may go to the extreme limit possible,' said that orator, 'but let it not commit the mortal imprudence of going too far.' This

as means of execution. If the Protocol had become effective, these would have been its corollaries; they are, as related to it, in the peculiar position of sons born before the civil status of their father was regularly established." This bit of humor was appreciated.

The huskiest of those sons is expected to see the light here in Locarno. Will he be conscious of being a “corollary"?

A year ago I talked with Dr. Benes, Czechoslovakian Foreign Minister. More than any other, he framed, under French inspiration, the Protocol of Geneva. He then said, "It is good, but it will have to be bettered."

The other night, at the International Students' Service dinner (and M. Benes himself is a product of that Service), I spoke with him again about it. "What did I tell you last year?" he remarked. "The system of regional pacts (also envisaged by Lord Cecil in his draft treaty), as well as a universal service, will lead to the same end, though likely to be longer in reaching the ideal. But we will ultimately realize it. I wish I might have talked about all this at the Williamstown Institute of Politics this summer. Another summer I hope to be more fortunate. For security has value to you Americans also if it brings world justice and peace. It is no mere FrancoGerman or Germano-Polish problem. It is not even a European problem. It is essentially and widely international, and demands an essentially and widely international solution."

While this is true, the world's peace may be bound up in the decisions of the present Conference. It began to-day,

but its discussions may not reach their really critical point before these words are read in America.

other hand, France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.

The agreements are, of course, not yet in force. Formal signatures are yet to be affixed-perhaps in London on December 1. Then ratification by the respective Governments will be necessary.

Chamberlain says that in the face of history no government can afford to reject such a step towards peace and justice.

The treaty will be effective only upon Germany's entrance into the League of Nations.

It is not yet known what concessions the Allies verbally made to some of the German demands. As already indicated, these demands include:

Enlarged eastern and southern boundaries; security against another Ruhr invasion; a parliament in the Saar [Sarre]; colonial mandates; and freedom from Articles 16 and 231 of the Treaty of Versailles.

In addition they now demand:

The lifting of the ban on the production of aircraft; the easing of the occupation of the region of the Rhine; an advance of the date for the plebiscite in the Saar; and permission to keep their present police intact.

Of course the Treaty of Locarno is worth only what the signatories' good faith is worth. Poland is the chief point of peril. France was unable to conclude a guaranty of the German-Polish arbitration treaty in the general pact; she therefore concluded at the same time and place conventions with Czechoslovakia and Poland declaring liberty of action in lending such mutual assistance as is implicit in the Locarno Treaty if a cosignatory should infringe its obligations, Poland should have been thus safeguarded in that treaty; but the Germans were adamant against any third Power guaranty of their own arbitration conventions.

The chief result achieved here is not so much in writing these agreements down in black and white as in bringing the highest authorities of Germany into direct contact with those of other Powers.

The Treaty of Locarno closes the postwar era and opens one of greater security to Europe and to the world. In spite of the new incitement to an alliance between Russia and the Asiatic Powers and the defining of the first step in Germany's determination to revise the Versailles Treaty and perhaps the Dawes Plan, the general sentiment here is far more confident of international fairness than it has been; and this fact will also influence the relations of America with the rest of the world.

Locarno, October 17, 1925.