'products would leave the worker, as a consumer, in just the same condition as when the lower wage prevailed.

The ignored factor in the problem of a wise readjustment of wage scales is that of the greater industrial efficiency in production that has everywhere been shown to accompany increased wages and a higher standard of living. With better pay there comes immediately an effective demand for more and better goods of all kinds. Articles formerly regarded as luxuries, seldom or never purchased, are looked upon as necessities. So far as the average worker is concerned, the only limit to consumption is income, less a small margin for the savings bank or life insurance. By far the greater part of increased wages is promptly exchanged for consumable goods. This in itself would not compensate employers for the higher wage scale, but with increased consumption giving a ready market for commodities it becomes possible materially to reduce the fixed charges for capital invested and overhead expenses. In many lines of industry there are long periods of half-time, or decreased activity, because of overproduction. It is manifest that with increased purchasing power for many millions of workers receiving the "living wage," mills and factories running full time would be able to effect a substantial saving in costs that would be reflected in prices.

There is also the experience of many great industries to prove that higher wages stimulate production by making contented workers more interested in their daily task. A cheerful willingness to give the employer a fair return for a fair wage means a greater output and a lessened manufacturing cost. Once established on the sound basis of equitable wages, it would seem that industry has little reason to fear diminished sales on account of higher prices.

GROUP POLITICS IN ONTARIO

THE

HE people of Ontario, one of the largest and most prosperous provinces of the Canadian Dominion, are confronted with a problem that vexes practically all democratic countrieswhether public affairs shall be managed by legislators nominated and elected by organized parties or by groups representing agricultural, labor, or business interests. From the earliest period of parliamentary government in Ontario until a few years ago the party system had prevailed. A general discontent with what was claimed to be the neglect by both old parties of the farmer's interests resulted in the formation of a distinctive Farm Group, that succeeded in overthrowing the Conservative Gov

(C) Underwood

MRS. W. H. FELTON, OF GEORGIA, THE FIRST WOMAN U. S. SENATOR ernment, and under the efficient leadership of Premier Drury has administered provincial affairs. There have been complaints that the new Government did not immediately reform everything and everybody, but the Ontario people, almost entirely of Anglo-Celtic stock, are not given to radicalism, believing in institutions under which "freedom slowly broadens down from precedent to precedent."

In some quarters there has recently arisen a sentiment favorable to the widening of the Farm Group policies so as to make the Government representative not only of agriculture but of the manufacturing, commercial, and labor interests as well. To a small extent labor is represented in the provincial Parliament, though not at all proportionate to the city-worker population. The suggestion is made for the formation of a Progressive party that shall unite the liberals of various schools, in which it is expected the farmers will be the dominant factor. Some of the leaders of the Farm Group in the Dominion Parliament do not regard favorably the proposal to merge with other interests, as they fear that they would be outvoted by their new associates, but it is not believed that they will be able materially to influence the action of their supporters in Ontario. Premier Drury recognizes the necessity for a government truly representative of all the people, and, while adhering to his conviction that the welfare of the farmers should be the paramount consideration, does not ignore the other important interests of his province.

The tendency to abandon party or

ganizations based on broad general principles, as evidenced by the "Farm Bloc" in the United States Congress, and the growing power of the Labor Party in Great Britain, will have an important effect on future political developments. As a protest against the ultra-conservatism of the old parties the movement may have some value, but as a permanent policy it would seem destined to failure.

The business of government cannot long oe efficiently conducted by class groups, each working for its own selfish ends, instead of for the general welfare.

THE FIRST WOMAN SENATOR

HE appointment by Governor Hard

Felton to succeed the late Thomas E. Watson as United States Senator has been praised as a fine tribute to a woman of undoubtedly exceptional ability and character. It has also been praised as a recognition of the present and coming power of women in the National political life. Is there not a third reason for the Governor's actionthat his beloved State should have the honor and the réclame of being the very first to name a woman as United States Senator? The love of large publicity is not confined to boom towns. Mrs. Felton seemed to recognize this when, in expressing her recognition of the honor, she said: "England borrowed an American-born woman to accept a seat in the British Parliament, but noble old Georgia experienced no need to borrow, and she alone of the forty-eight States in the United States had a Governor with courage to say so."

Probably every one understands that Senator Watson's unexpired term will be filled out by the man elected for that office on November 7. Mrs. Felton, whose abilities even at the age of eightyseven are unquestioned, now holds the office titularly, but in all buman probability will not be sworn in or take part in the Senate's deliberations. The compliment to her is a great one; but it is a compliment. Frankly, and with the highest respect for Senator Felton, there seems to be here a little of what baseball rooters call a grand-stand play on the part of the Governor, who, by the way, simultaneously announced himself as a candidate for the same office at the coming election. Mrs. Longstreet, widow of the famous general, in an article on Mrs. Felton's appointment suggested that if President Harding would just call the Senate together for one week before election Mrs. Felton could be sworn in, and that thus the President had "a rare opportunity to

offer a bouquet to millions of American women." On the whole, it doesn't seem to add to the dignity of the United States Senate to use it as an excuse for handing out bouquets. It wouldn't hurt the Senate-it has stood a lot and can stand more; but proffers of the office of Senator are really not the best material to use in extending courtesies even to so fine a person as Mrs. Felton.

THE ETERNAL MUCKER

HE baseball series for the world's

Tchampionship between the winners TH

in the National and American Leagues has ended in a fashion unexpected by dopesters, both professional and amateur. Most of the wise gentlemen who edit the sporting columns of newspapers had predicted a victory for the New York Yankees. The triumph, however, perched upon the banners of the New York Giants in four straight games. It is a hard world, particularly for those who have to depend for a living largely upon their records as prophets. The victory of the Giants was unexpected but there was another feature of the series which, we are sad to say, was unforeseen but which could readily be expected from the average American baseball crowd.

The second game of the series was called on account of darkness, when the score was tied in the tenth inning. Those who attended the game differ as to the necessity for this act. Christy Mathewson, whose record for good sportsmanship and fairness cannot be questioned, states that the umpires were correct in their judgment. The howling fans, however, believed otherwise.

With the intelligence usually displayed by a mob, they proceeded to vent their wrath upon Judge Landis and his wife. Judge Landis, who resigned an honorable position on the bench to be come the arbiter of baseball ethics, had a signal exhibition of the ethics of baseball fans when he attempted to leave the grounds at the conclusion of the game. There seems to have been no one present who was quite fool enough to hurl the traditional pop bottle at Judge Landis's head, but the fans apparently stopped short of little in the way of verbal missiles. The American likes to consider himself a good sportsman. He has not earned this title by his acts on the bleachers surrounding American diamonds.

The criticism that the game was called to insure the necessity of additional lucrative contests has been silenced by the gift of the receipts of the game to charities. Half of them ought to have gone to a Society for the Suppression of the Eternal Mucker.

PROHIBITION ON

L

THE SEA

IQUOR outlawed by the American Constitution has been sold freely and openly and under the sanction of Government authority on ships flying the American flag and even on ships owned and operated by the American Government. This has seemed an inconsistency so glaring as to subject the American people, or at least their Government, to the charge of insincerity, or at least of the lack of the courage of their convictions. It has been argued that unless liquor were sold on board American passenger vessels the business of carrying passengers on the high seas would pass to foreign lines. In other words, as between Constitution and busi ness choose business. That is dollar ethics. Now the ruling of the AttorneyGeneral of the United States has freed the country from the stigma of this practice. "Wet" or "dry," any American who regards the supreme law of the land as worthy of respect and the good name of his country as worthy of preservation should welcome Attorney-General Daugherty's ruling in this respect. Hereafter the provision of the United States Constitution, expressed in the Eighteenth Amendment, that prohibition shall be effective in the United States and all territory "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" will be observed on board American vessels where it has been heretofore officially and openly ignored. Attorney-General Daugherty's opinion was in answer to a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Mellon. In that letter Mr. Mellon had inclosed an opinion of the counsel to the Shipping Board to the effect that the Eighteenth Amendment did not apply to ships on

P. & A. Photos

the high seas, and had asked two questions: First, whether that ruling was correct; and, second, whether the transportation and possession of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes on foreign vessels while in American waters is prohibited.

In reply, the Attorney-General took up the two questions separately.

To the first he answered in the negative; to the second, in the affirmative. The answer to the first question depended on deciding whether an American vessel on the high seas is territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Attorney-General in his reply cited, not only decisions of the courts, but also statements in Moore's "International Law Digest" and diplomatic correspondence in support of the common-sense conclusion that American vessels on the high seas are American territory and subject to American laws. The word "territory" does not necessarily mean land. As Justice Field says in an opinion which the Attorney-General quoted, wherever vessels under the American flag go, "they carry the laws of their country." It is true that there is a difference between "the United States" and "territory subject to the United States," and that laws which apply to the one do not necessarily apply to the other; but in this instance prohibition applies specifically and explicitly to both. We do not doubt, and we cannot believe that there will be any serious effort to refute the conclusion of Attorney-General Daugherty, that the prohibition of the sale and possession of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes applies not only to the American States but also to all vessels carrying the American flag.

Attorney-General Daugherty likewise

ruled that under international law prohibition is effective in foreign vessels while in American ports.

This opinion in answer to the second question has been received with considerable doubt and with some attempts at refutation. A careful reading, however, of Attorney-General Daugherty's opinion will, we think, convince most skeptics that the Attorney-General has correctly stated international law. A foreigner who comes to this country does not cease to be a foreigner subject to his own country's laws; but while he is here he is subject to American laws as well and must observe them or become liable to prosecution. He must, for instance, pay an income tax if he has an income that is taxable; he must obey police regulations; he must observe his obligations under contracts he makes; he must, in brief, do what the law directs as much as any citizen of the country. Likewise when a foreign vessels enters an American port she does not cease to be a foreign vessel, but she becomes subject to the laws of the country and is bound to obey those laws and to conform to the usages of the port. And, like a foreign individual, a foreign vessel is not only subject to the limitations of the law but is entitled to its protection. There could be no other way by which vessels of sovereign independent nations could visit one another's ports. Diplomats representing sovereigns of their countries are immune to the law because they are subject to a higher and more sensitive control-namely, the code which governs the conduct of sovereigns. There is no such immunity granted to foreign citizens or foreign vessels.

The New York "World," widely known as a spokesman for the anti-prohibitionists, has expressed a common menta! confusion about this aspect of the question. We quote a paragraph from one of the "World" editorials:

Ships chartered in the United States, according to Mr. Daugherty, are subject to the laws of the United States, are, in fact, American territory; but ships chartered in foreign countries are not foreign territory. As soon as they enter American waters all vessels subject themselves to American law, which means, of course, the Volstead Act. How this comes about is not clearly explained. It would naturally be supposed that if an American ship were American territory a British ship would be British territory, and so on. Mr. Daugherty cannot have it both ways. On one point or the other he must change his mind or have it changed for him.

What the "World" seems not to know is the distinction between a vessel on the high seas and a vessel in port. An American vessel on the high seas is sub

H

SKIRTS

ALF humorist, half philosopher, a good friend of ours wrote in his commonplace book a few weeks ago: "To-day, at high noon, saw two young women wearing skirts that reached down, down, down to their very heels. Experienced a sensation not only of bewilderment but of shock. Stared. Then averted my face. Was in the same mood, precisely, as the London fishwife who, on first seeing a girl in bicycle costume, cried, 'Garn! you shimeless 'ussy! You'll never get an 'usband!' . . . Something tells me that all this is laughable."

...

Two weeks later our friend wrote: "Several more young women have ventured out in long skirts, and wonderful is the effect on wearers of short skirts. A look of icy hate overspreads their countenances. I suppose it was with some such hate that Mr. Harold Hendee, having starred in "The Very Idea' and arrived in New York with that play, beheld the posters thereof inscribed, not with the name of Hendee, but with that of Mr. Ernest Truex."

Into the question of the method by THE BATTLE OF THE which our Prohibition Law shall be applied to foreign vessels the AttorneyGeneral, does not go in detail. Apparently he holds that the existence of intoxicating liquors on board a foreign vessel in an American port is illegal, no matter how those liquors may be stored. Under the law there is provision made for the transportation within the country of spirits and wine for other than beverage purposes, but, according to the Supreme Court quoted by the AttorneyGeneral, "there is no provision for the transshipment or carriage across the country from without;" and the law prohibits all possession or transportation of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. Even a prohibitionist from conviction may doubt whether the most drastic application of the law to foreign vessels can be practically enforced, and may conceivably hold that for all intents and purposes the spirit of the law will be observed if liquor in foreign vessels remain while in American ports under seal, and therefore non est. It may be argued that this would be inexpedient, as it would enable foreign vessels visiting America to carry and sell liquors on the high seas, while American vessels in competition with them would be prohibited from doing so. The object, however, of the Prohibition Law is not to control the habits and practices of other nations on territory subject to their jurisdiction. The argument that foreign vessels would have an advantage over their American competitors might be met by an American subsidy. Whether the application of prohibition to foreign vessels in our ports can be determined by administrative regulation or will require further legislation by Congress does not at the moment seem clear. All, "wet" and "dry" alike, will agree that, whether by statute or by legitimate administrative regulation, the principle of prohibition should be applied so as to promote, not the evasion of it, but its observance.

By the Attorney-General's ruling the American Government has asserted the right to require of foreign vessels the observance of the Prohibition Law within American waters; and this right the British Government has acknowledged. We trust that the American Government will exercise that right with justice and with reason. By the Attorney-General's ruling the American Gov

Meanwhile others besides the laughing philosopher had their say-especially our feminists. With great solemnity they predicted that the attempt to reintroduce long skirts would fail. "Women will never again submit," they told

us.

Yet long skirts have multiplied; uptown they already outnumber short skirts six to one, while philosophers remind us that masculine dictation from overseas directs these matters and quote George Fitch's remark, "Ever since the world began men have tried to invent something that women would refuse to wear. Thus far they have not succeeded."

But women have had short skirts ere this, and reverted to long skirts ere this-not always in obedience to masculine dictation, either. In 1898 students at Smith College adopted exactly the costume of the present-day "flappers." By their own choice they abandoned it. Who shall say but that women are now acting as freely? The reversion to long skirts set in just when we had come to sanction short skirts and a shrewd paragrapher had written: "To bring the flapper to terms approve of her. Then she'll stop it."

But she has only half stopped it. The

Brown Bros.

In

battle of the skirts still rages-short ones versus long ones, with long ones predominating among women of the prosperous class and short ones predominating among women of the wageearning class. How will this end? Buffalo during the "bicycle summer" of 1895 bicycle girls on the prosperous West Side adopted short skirts. Immediately East Side girls did likewise. Whereupon the West Side went back to long skirts. So the East Side went back to long skirts also. Once let the short skirt imply a weekly envelope, and its day in America is done, for in America our wage-earning women are without caste pride. It takes Frenchwomen to develop that. How airily the little midinette trips forth, hatless and in attire jauntily proclaiming that she wins her bread by making artificial flowers or by delicately embroidering fine linen!

Less than a year ago a noted criminologist solemnly attributed the "crime wave" to the "scandalous dress of our women," and no one laughed. It has since dawned upon us that such utterances bespeak great folly. Perhaps we risk folly as great by suggesting thatconceivably, at least-the return of long skirts indicates a reinstatement of temporarily demoded standards in other realms besides those of fashion. But it is not fashion alone that shows change. From many sources come testimonies that "flapperism" has "passed the peak." Moreover, a change in fashion reflects a change in mood. Not all new fash

ions succeed; the trouser skirt of 1911 failed ignominiously; when a fashion succeeds, it is because it finds an honest welcome, and the mood that welcomes a return to long skirts would seem to be a reaction against what a popular novelist has termed "this freedom."

Doubtless the world will never again behold the "elegant female" of our grandmothers' day, but the tendency at present is toward a recovery of discarded dignities and refinements. If women have learned that they are free to dress as they choose and behave as they choose, they have also learned that an element quite apart from a more or less obscure morality (or psuedomorality) enters in-the element, that is to say, of good taste. Half our principles, when you come to think of it, rest, not upon moral considerations, but upon æsthetic considerations.

instinct. The reins of a spirited horse fitted his fingers more naturally than the helm of a vessel. But even as a young man naval problems concerned him deeply. It was while he was a college undergraduate that he prepared and wrote the "History of the War of 1812," which has been accepted as part of the official record of the British Navy.

As Assistant Secretary of the Navy Roosevelt was a vital factor in the preparedness of Dewey's Asiatic Squadron. It was on February 25, 1898, that he sent his brief but sufficient cable to Dewey, which read in part: "Keep full of coal. In the event of declaration of war [with] Spain your duty will be to see that the Spanish Squadron does not leave the Asiatic coast, then offensive operation in Philippine Islands." This message sums up in brief almost the whole of the doctrine of Admiral Mahan, whose celebrated work on "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History" has become the Bible of naval statesmen. In less than forty words Mr. Roosevelt gives the essence of naval strategy. Prepare in time of peace. Strike at the enemy fleet to gain control of the sea. Let the war of position wait upon the attainment of naval supremacy.

This policy was sound in the days when Hannibal and Hasdrubal were forced by Roman naval supremacy to strike at the Republic on the Tiber across the difficult passes of the Alps. It was sound when Britain and France struggled half blindly for the Empire of India. It was sound when Washington urged the admirals of France to move upon the British fleet. It was sound when the pressure of the grand fleet at Scapa Flow, controlling the seas even while it lay at anchor, drove the German navy to futile and murderous warfare of a type which has crippled many nations but defeated none.

Sound in naval principle, Mr. Roosevelt was equally sound in naval practice. "The shots that hit are the shots that count," wrote Mr. Roosevelt in his autobiography, and it was to his credit that Sims was given the opportunity to introduce modern methods of target shooting into our Navy-methods which resulted in tripling the gun-for-gun effectiveness of our fleet in the years between 1902 and 1908.

Perhaps almost the greatest service which Roosevelt rendered our Navy was his order to the battleship fleet to proceed around the world. How this voy age aroused the interest of America in our Navy, the manner in which it impressed the Governments of Europe, and the expressions of friendship which it evoked from Japan are facts of recent