« AnteriorContinuar »
graduates and undergraduates of Yale, Princeton, and Harvard.
The terms of this agreement are worthy of study by all those who are interested in cleaning up the amateur athletic situation in America. The present regulations, supplementary to those already in existence, include, first, a re quirement that
The university committee on eligibility shall, in advance of competition, require of each candidate for competition in any sport a detailed statement of the sources of his financial support, including any sums earned during vacation. In the case of each athlete who is shown to have received financial aid from others than those on whom he is naturally dependent for support, the committee shall then, in advance of his competition, submit the facts to the committee of the three chairmen (representing the three universities), which shall decide upon his eligibility.
In cases in which the motives for extending aid to an athlete are not clear to the committee of the three chairmen, that committee shall take into account failure on the part of the athlete to maintain a creditable record in his academic course in character, scholarship, and willingness to meet his obligations, as evidence that a continuance of financial aid to the athlete on grounds of character, scholarship, and conduct seems unwise, and that therefore the committee may have to declare him ineligible.
An athlete is barred from participating in college sports if at any time he has received any pecuniary reward from any connection with athletics, and a student is also barred from any athletic team or crew who receives, "from others than those on whom he is naturally dependent for financial support, money by gift or loan, or the equivalent of money, such as board and lodging, etc., unless the source and character of these gifts or payments to him shall be approved by the committee of three chairmen on the ground that they have not accrued to him primarily because of his ability as an athlete."
Two important sections of the new agreement state that any student who transfers to Yale, Harvard, or Princeton from any college or university shall be ineligible to represent these institutions in any sport in which he represented his former college or university except when playing against the university from which he transferred, and that the "three universities wholly disapprove of all propaganda, either through special inducements or through disparagement of other institutions, to induce boys in the schools to go to a particular institution."
Concerning coaches, the agreement says that "it should be the aim of each university, as far as practicable, to have
MISS GLENNA COLLETT, WINNER OF THE WOMEN'S NATIONAL GOLF CHAMPIONSHIP
AT WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS
the coaching of all teams done only by members of its regular staff," and that "while under contract no coach shall write for publication on the subject of athletics without first submitting for approval by the university authorities any articles intended for publication."
The agreement prohibits athletic practice prior to the week before the universities open, reduces the length of athletic schedules, and forbids post-season contests. Two wise provisions require that athletic schedules shall include so far as possible only contests with teams representing institutions setting similar standards of eligibility and that athletic publicity shall be subject to constant supervision and study in an effort to lessen undue emphasis upon athletics in general and football in particular.
way during the progress of the tournament. In the final match Miss Collett scored a forty-three and a thirty-eight for a total of eighty-one strokes in the morning round. Any man not in the first flight who plays nine difficult holes in thirty-eight strokes generally feels like going home and buying himself a cup. Such a score is ample testimony of the quality of Miss Collett's golf.
The tournament was held at White Sulphur Springs, Virginia.
E hereby express our gratitude to the New York "Times" for print
ing on the editorial page of its issue for September 22 a delightful article on the late Léon Bonnat, the French artist who died last month at the ripe age of eighty-nine. Bonnat was one of the most popular and successful of French portrait painters during the last half-century, and made a fortune with his brush. Many well-known American artists were pupils in his studio from time to time, such as: Edwin H. Blashfield, President of our own National Academy; H. Siddons Mowbray and Henry Oliver Walker, the distinguished mural painters; Charles Y. Turner, widely known for his figure and historical paintings; and William A. Coffin, of the National Academy, and author of the "Times" article.
Bonnat was apparently a great personality as well as a successful artist. Indeed, it is his personality as portrayed by Mr. Coffin that is of special interest to the layman. He did not indulge in "blurbs" in his studio; the highest commendation which he ever gave to a pupil was, "Pas mal!"-not bad. It is evident that he believed that genius is composed of perspiration as well as of inspiration, for, "a remarkable and accomplished draughtsman himself, he insisted upon his pupils working incessantly to arrive at the fairest measure of success they might show themselves capable of achieving." Although he had what some painters scorn, a social success as a portrait painter, it did not spoil his intellectual standards, as the following anecdote related by Mr. Coffin indicates:
One time when I was in his studio in his fine house in the Rue Bassano, Bonnat had, among other canvases on his ten or twelve .big easels, a portrait of Mayor Hewitt, a most excellent work by the way, and a full-length picture of an American gentleman socially well known, in hunting costume, as he appeared on his estate in Scotland. He told me he was one of my compatriots, naming him, and then, indicating the Hewitt portrait, he said: "Mais, voila un homme intelligent."
During the war Bonnat worked actively in an association, of which he
was the founder, for the benefit of families of artists who had been killed in the conflict, and co-operated in full sympathy with the American Artists' Committee of One Hundred, which was organized for the creation of a relief fund for the families of French soldierartists. That Committee, by the way, is still in existence and is proposing to continue its aid to the dependent widows and children of French artists during the calendar year 1922. It may be that there are some who read these lines who have had pleasure from the canvases of Bonnat and may like to express their pleasure by sending a contribution to William A. Coffin, Chairman of the American Artists' Committee of One
Hundred, 58 West Fifty-seventh Street, New York City, for the benefit of these artists' families.
CLARK OF THE OREGON
E do not think often nowadays of the anxieties and feats of the Spanish War. The death of RearAdmiral Charles E. Clark brings back vividly, however, an adventure which was rightly a nine days' wonder at the time of its occurrence. It will be remembered that while Cervera's whereabouts were unknown Captain Clark was intrusted with the dangerous task of bringing the Oregon from the Pacific coast to augment the Atlantic Fleet. He left San Francisco on March 19, 1898, and sixty-seven days later steamed into Jupi ter Inlet, on the coast of Florida, unharmed and ready for battle. There was no Panama Canal in '98, and between Captain Clark and his destination lay the turbulent waters of the Horn and possible attack by a Spanish torpedo-boat.
During Captain Clark's historic voyage he passed Captain Joshua Slocum voyaging alone around the world in the little nine-ton Spray. Slocum did not know of the declaration of war against Spain. It was therefore an alarming sight to find the Oregon flying the signals C B T, which meant, "Are there any men-of-war about?" Captain Slocum signaled back, "No," and as the Oregon passed by hoisted the international code flags which meant, "Let us keep together for mutual protection." In the account of his voyage he wrote that Captain Clark did not seem to regard this signal as necessary! We wonder if any naval officer can tell us whether or not Slocum's signal was made out on board the Oregon. Slocum says that the Oregon's great flag dipped beautifully in reply to the lowered colors of the Spray. We suspect that if Captain Clark had made out the Spray's final signal he would have replied to it in a manner worthy of Slocum's gallant jest.
Rear-Admiral Clark was seventy-nine
THOMAS E. WATSON, OF GEORGIA cessfully led the people in the art of self-government, which is the art of political and social self-restraint. Nothing could be further in purpose and character from such a man than one who seeks and obtains power over the people by inciting their passions and intensifying their prejudices; and yet it is to this opposite extreme that the name demagogue has come to be applied. Undoubtedly, many a true leader of the people in self-government has found it impossible to lead by virtue of reason alone, and undoubtedly many a man who has mounted to power through popular passion has served some good end at one time or another in his career; and therefore the determination whether a man is a demagogue in the one sense or the other has been at times a matter of opinion rather than of demonstrable fact.
To many thousands of persons in the South, and particularly in his own State of Georgia, Tom Watson (as he liked to be called), who died on September 26, was a demagogue in the good old sense. He was regarded as a leader of the op
pressed and unprivileged in their struggle for emancipation. As one eulogist, writing in the Atlanta "Constitution," said of him on the day after his death: "As a practicing lawyer, when he traveled from one end of Georgia to the other in criminal cases, in which he specialized, he invariabiy fought the battle of the defendant and not the prosecutor.... It was this spirit for the man who was down, for the farmer who was struggling, for the laborer who was fighting the tide, that made him the idol of the poor." As a consequence, Watson gained a following which he commanded as few officers can command their men even in time of war. As another eulogist said of him in the same newspaper: "When "Tom' Watson appeared before his people, he played on their emotions like a master of the violin plays on his delicate instrument. . . He molded the opinions and thoughts of his followers like so much putty, and with most of them it was only for him to say and for them to do."
No man can attain this position in any community without exceptional ability. Tom Watson was a man of mental vigor and brilliance. Proof of his ability abides in some of the books he wrote, notably his two-volume work "The Story of France," which is a picture of France as distinctive as Carlyle's "French Revolution," and, like Carlyle's book, is as much a portraiture of the author as of his subject.
Unhappily, the gifts of Thomas Edward Watson were ill employed. His power to sway the people by eloquence was perverted again and again to the arousing of racial animosities, religious prejudice, and class hostilities. His influence was immeasurably hurtful to right relations between whites and blacks in his State and elsewhere. He aided the unthinking hate of the Jews as Jews. He made it more difficult rather than less difficult for conscientious Roman Catholic and Protestant citizens to live in amity side by side. And he tended to arouse in the minds of all who were poor a feeling of distrust for all who were rich, without regard for character. During the war he was an obstructionist. He sought to prevent the sending of selective service men for the war overseas. His periodicals, "The Weekly Jeffersonian" and "Watson's Jeffersonian Magazine," became so hostile to the effective prosecution of the war that they were excluded from the mails. After the war he made himself notorious by bringing unsubstantiated charges of the most atrocious character against American overseas officers. His constructive record is very slight.
Born in Columbia County, Georgia, Thomas E. Watson was a student for
HE Republicans and the Demo-
in the State of New York, the one at Albany, the other at Syracuse. Each gathering marked the return of the convention system for the nomination of State officers.
A friend of The Outlook who was an eye-witness of the Republican Conven tion at Albany writes to us of it as follows:
It seemed strangely something that hadn't the reason it once had. There were over a thousand persons (delegates), I believe, all very much alike in appearance and manner of speech. I never saw so many people together who were so much alike.
"What does your political-philosophical makeup say to this?" asked a friend.
I said it seemed much of the same thing.
"Yes," said he. "It is all Governor Miller."
I told him I didn't object to that, and I didn't. But I kept on thinking, "Is this the best we can do with a serious job?" Groups here and there were talking like stock brokers. About twelve men were upstairs slate-making at the Ten Eyck [a well-known Albany hotel]; and in the lounge both men and women were yawning and asking, "When do we eat and is it fixed yet?"
Really, at both Syracuse and Albany one man has been doing all the thinking for the State. This is not so anywhere else in the world to-day. We are back in the good old '90's, bag and baggage, in this State.
Not quite, we believe, for now the delegates to party conventions are chosen by direct election by the party voters in the direct primary. As a consequence, in the conventions this year the personal quality of the different delegations was much improved over the old days of unrestricted selection by the bosses; but the failure of the Convention as a deliberative self-governing body was as marked as it always has been and always will be, except in those special cases when the public is greatly aroused over political conditions. A thousand men and women meeting for two days only are incapable of reflection or of self-mastery. A convention is essentially a social function; useful enough in its way as a means of bringing a thousand representatives of the party from all parts of the State into closer touch and unity, and sometimes helpful to the leaders as offering an opportunity for a test probe of public opinion while the slate and platform are being made. But the real work of preliminary jockeying and final decision is always done by a few outstanding political personalities who meet more or less secretly in a hotel suite, and not in the convention. It is in the human nature of the situation, and it cannot be changed by statute.
The chief surface features of the two Conventions appear to have been somewhat as follows. The Republican gathering was dominated almost completely by the leadership of Governor Miller. His term of office has been marked by an economical and intelligent direction of government, and his unusual ability both as a party manager and exponent of public opinion has made him the chief asset of the Republicans in New York. He swept the slate practically clean of the State officers who served with him during his first incumbency, and selected an entirely new ticket, with the exception of State Treasurer, to stand with him for his second campaign. There seems to have been a reason in every case, and the Republican public has taken little umbrage at the Governor's drastic action. His course in this matter is a most practical admission of the
NATHAN L. MILLER
need of the so-called short ballot in State government, which means in essence that the Governor should have authority to select the chief State officers who really make up his Cabinet and who should be chosen for their team-work qualities. Governor Miller has fulfilled the short-ballot idea by a short cut of gubernatorial pressure upon a Convention which was absolutely beholden to his renomination. Of course nobody but a candidate in the position of Governor Miller could accomplish the reform in this way.
The Democratic gathering was characterized by a struggle for control between the forces of William Randolph Hearst, the well-known editor, and the forces behind Alfred E. Smith, former Governor of New York. This Convention had less of the self-governing quality than the Republican Convention. The Republicans at least nodded assent to what they knew beforehand was going to happen. The Democrats had not the slightest idea of what was going to happen until they heard it from the Tammany machine leader at the final session; and then they also cordially acquiesced. Hearst was repudiated and Smith was again made the standard-bearer of his party. The Republican platform is dignified, orderly, economical in its tendency, conservative, and practical. The Democratic platform has a great deal of humanness in it, but is stuffed with schemes of municipal operation and with ideas and suggestions of government action for human welfare which would probably swamp a municipal or State
treasury if carried out. The Republican
platform favors slow advance, only as fast as the State can pay for and manage it. The Democrats in New York to be for headlong advance, whether or no. A wave of "torrential" emotion swept the Convention at Syracuse upon the reading of the plank demanding the legalizing of beer and light wines as beverages of the people. But, as one of the participants said to the man next to him: "It doesn't mean anything. I have lapped up enough of it myself, but I'm glad that my two boys are growing up in a ginless generation!"
Underneath these surface ebullitions and intimations the fact seems to be that the same conservative forces of the country were behind both Conventions, working out their will. There was some alarm in high conservative centers outside as well as inside the State of New York that Hearst might secure the gubernatorial nomination, perhaps be elected, and win the Presidency in 1924, becoming the leader of the radical irresponsibles in the Nation. These influences and the natural trend of desire on the part of the Democratic rank and file united to push Hearst aside with Smith, who has had a sensible career and is now connected with a large business enterprise in New York City. There is no reason to believe that Smith cared to be nominated, except to keep Hearst away from the centers of control of the Democratic party. The conservatives in both parties are now likely to join with the majority of the citizens of the State in electing Miller. Miller is a natural conservative, but it is usually true that honest conservatives under responsibility become liberal, and that is what is happening to Miller. His record is one of moderate rational advance.
The Hearst forces regard this conservative tendency in the State of New York as reactionary and denounce it. Probably the true interpretation is that it really fulfills the present desires of the voters. Throughout the world radicalism and Socialism are just now under the ban of common sense because they are associated with disorder and starvation. Whatever may be said of conservatism and capitalism, they at least have the merit of being able to feed the world.
When we meditate upon such conventions as these which we have described and reflect upon what lies behind, we are more than ever impressed with the lines of the "Rubaiyat:"
We are no other than a moving row Of visionary Shapes that come and go Round with this Sun-illumin'd Lantern held
In Midnight by the Master of the Show.
INSIDE AN EDITORIAL
OFFICE LOOKING OUT
ETTERS which sometimes come to The Outlook indicate a curious lack of knowledge and comprehension of the purpose and habits of editors in general. A composite picture of an editorial office, drawn from these letters, would have something of the following appearance.
Between the elevator door and the sanctum sanctorum is drawn up a phalanx of grim and determined office boys who have received positive instructions to mislay or reject every tenth manuscript which shows its head over the threshold. Behind these office boys is placed a row of primary school graduates, and behind these primary school graduates a row of grammar school products, and behind them still another row of high school luminaries-and these three barriers are, respectively, commissioned to reject every ninth, eighth, and seventh manuscript upon which their hands may fall. It goes without saying that they are all instructed under peril of death not to read a single line of anything which they may receive.
The residue of this process of decimation and worse is given then to a group of disappointed authors with fixed ideas as to the type of material of which they can approve. The manuscripts which those readers leave intact are then deposited upon the desk of an Olympian editor (probably pictured with side burns), whose only test for acceptance is summed up in the question, Is or is not this article signed by a PROMINENT and WELL-KNOWN writer?
Possibly this picture is a trifle highly colored, but we think it contains elements of truth.
Those would-be contributors to the magazine field who entertain a notion similar to this ought to take a little time to put themselves, theoretically at least, in an editor's shoes and imagine what it is to sit in an editorial office, looking out rather than in. They might begin by asking themselves, "Why is an editor?" It is possible that we may be able to help them to answer by giving cur own definition.
An editor is an architect. He wants to build homes for the minds of people. The better homes he builds, the more people there will be who demand his services and the greater his reward, both tangible and intangible. Of course different kinds of editors have different ideas as to the type of homes which they desire to build and the class of people to whom they desire to appeal. There are editors of specialized periodi
tion with a magazine of general circu
cals who would not take as a gift a posi
lation. There are editors who prefer to
build cubicles for limited cults, and those who are happiest when herding millions of followers into jerry-built bungalows. Mr. Sedgwick, we presume, is eminently satisfied to carry on his successful efforts to make the Georgian architecture of the "Atlantic" livable as well as dignified. Mr. Lorimer probably would not exchange for anything else his task of providing clean and sanitary quarters for the population of the vast hotel that is the "Saturday Evening Post." Each editor to his taste and to his peculiar clientele.
With this architectural parable in mind to explain the function of editorship, let us turn to the details of its practice. An architect determines first the type of house which he desires to build and then proceeds to order from contractors the material necessary for its construction. An editorial architect does much the same thing, but his task is both lightened and complicated by the amount of voluntary material which is brought forth for his inspection. Let us say that he has determined upon building a home of a certain definite architectural type for his readers. Promptly he finds himself confronted with a host of literary contractors bearing all kinds of material, from steel beams suitable for a sky-scraper to rotten timbers suitable only for a bonfire. If he spent all his time explaining to the gentlemen who wish to insert tons of structural steel in a summer cottage or rotten timbers in a city office building why their material was not available, there would be little or no time left for the actual work of construction. Hence, to drop at once and for the rest of this article from parables to painful facts, the reason for the dreaded, formal, and necessary rejection slip.
Editors want the best material they can find. Would-be contributors can rest assured that their offerings will be considered on their merits for special editorial purposes. Men with experience in editorial tasks know that there are certain ear-marks of good workmanship found in almost every manuscript which is worth considering. They know, for instance, that the experienced and effec tive writer seldom presents his material in a slipshod fashion. They know that writers who are worth their salt do not try to appeal to personal favoritism or influence to secure a hearing for their stories. They know from long experience that a manuscript which begins incredibly badly does not suddenly blossom into a work of genius on page ten. Most amateur writers, by the way, would sell more manuscripts if they would
make it an invariable practice to tear up the first two pages of their articles before they offered them for publication.
Of course there have been many instances when editorial carelessness or editorial inefficiency has failed to discern the merits of a work which has later been accepted and widely read. But the vast number of those who com
plain of the difficulty of getting past the office boy cannot lay the flattering unction to their souls that they belong in this class of illustrious exceptions to the general rule. The editorial office boy is, O legion of would-be contributors, very much of a myth. In The Outlook office, and in every other editorial office of which we have any knowledge, every
article of any promise is at least tasted (do not worry-we shall not repeat that time-worn story of the egg) by a fullfledged, dyed-in-the-wool member of the editorial staff. No, if writers must find scapegoats for their literary misadventures, let them leave editorial office boys severely alone. If they must vent their wrath, let it be on office cats.
THE RIGHT JOB FOR THE RIGHT BOY
would be well for all of us in gen
BY CHARLES K. TAYLOR
could it be otherwise? For intelligent they had taken up. Let us take for ex
Ieral, and for the coming generation choice the individual should have some ample the Electrical Club. Electrical
Davis's article in The Outlook for August 9 were taken seriously to heart both by parents and by educators. If our various educational systems have one thing in common, it is the serious lack of attention given to matters most intimately affecting life as it should and could be lived.
The writer remembers well an almost open rebellion on the part of three or four parents who happened to get together one evening on the subject of education. Their sons were attending one of the usual, well-patronized, successful private academies of high standing. After considerable argument, they emphatically decided that the schools seemed to do nothing whatever in giving a preparation for intelligent citizenship, for intelligent breadwinning, and for developing the high idealism that makes for good character. Not at all! All the school pretended or hoped to do was to prepare its pupils for college-which is a very different thing!
The connection between some of the highly preposterous college entrance requirements and efficient living is one that we cannot stop to search out at this time. The point of great interest brought out by Secretary Davis is that every child should have an opportunity to learn a trade, and to learn it in a way that would develop the best attitude toward it and toward work in general. And along with this is the idea that the trade must be fitted to the boy.
This is certainly an ideal toward which we educators should work, although it presents difficulties of which too few are aware. It is not sufficient to ask a boy, "What do you want to be?" or words to that effect. The world is full of carpenters who would rather be machinists, and clerks who would rather be anything else, and architects who would rather be physicians, and so on, who in the beginning picked out their present vocations as the very ones they desired the most!
The fact is that boys and young men are apt to make a very bad choice because they know little or nothing more than the most superficial characteristics of the vocations they have chosen. How
ments and possibilities and general characteristics of the vocation he is choosing, and this is something that, unfortunately, our educational institutions are not yet able to provide, though the so-called "manual training" high schools are making steps in that direction. Too few boys go to high school; and those that do not, often make the worst decisions.
It may be interesting shortly to describe an experiment aimed at this particular problem-an experiment that at least developed some interesting data, and we will bring these up in a few minutes, for another general phase of the matter should be mentioned first.
There are some who insist that by means of intelligence tests, or capacity tests, a boy can be guided in the direction of an appropriate vocation. The writer does not believe that any such perfection in intelligence and capacity tests has yet been reached. It seems likely, however, that we are just at the beginnings of this great field of research, and it may well be that, before long, intelligence and capacity tests may point very directly toward the type of vocation best suited to an individual.
Let us now go back to the experiment just mentioned. It was desired to find some method that would make boys of the upper grammar grades acquainted with the general characteristics, possibilities, and requirements of a considerable number of important vocations. Two or three large grammar schools were used in this work, which was carried on in this fashion: In each school a number of "clubs" were organized, each in charge of a young man specializing in the kind of work involved. There was, for instance, an Electrical Club, a House-Building Trades Club, a Mechanical Engineering Club, a Law Club, and so on. These clubs met one afternoon each week, or on a Saturday morning.
No, the members of the clubs did not sit around and hear their leaders give more or less interesting "talks" concerning the various vocations. Not at all. The clubs were given all possible opportunity to learn by direct observation the essential qualities of the kind of work
the college-trained engineer to the man who puts in push-buttons on front doors. Well, the boys in this class were taken to where small dwellings were being constructed, so that they could see how such houses were wired for lights and bells. They saw more advanced work in office buildings. They saw the running of great dynamos. They went into shops where electrical machinery was being made. They became acquainted with the general plan of a telephone system, and so on. You may be sure that after a term of this observation, if a boy said he desired to go to a technical high school and to become eventually an electrician of a certain kind, it was quite likely that the boy knew what he was talking about, and would not enter this vocation with illusions that so often go to pieces after the young man has become inextricably fixed to what has become an uninteresting, boresome occupation.
That was one accomplishment. Boys were made acquainted with the characteristics, requirements, and possibilities of the vocation in which they were interested, and so could plan wisely for the future.
And there was another very interesting development. It was found during the first few months that there was a great shifting about of individuals from one club to another-for a boy was free to change when he liked. For some soon found the vocation of their interest was actually quite different from the conception they had held of it. So they would drop one club and join a more promising group, and so on, perhaps with several changes, until one came whose subject made a direct appeal-and then the wanderings ceased.
After less than a year of trial this experiment came to an end, a lack of funds making it impossible to continue it-and, of course, it was too much to expect that any typically conservative school board would be likely to adopt at once anything so directly practicalwithout several years of thinking or talking it over. But the experimenters were pleased to this extent-they had actually found a practical means that