Imágenes de páginas

of their leaders as Austen Chamberlain, the Earl of Balfour, Winston Churchill, Marquis Curzon, Viscount Birkenhead, Bonar Law, and many others. The real question is whether an Opposition made up of men and of parties who dislike Lloyd George and distrust his policies will so combine after the proposed general election as to form a working majority and to be intrusted with the Government. To an outsider this would seem somewhat like a Cave of Adullam party. "WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF BRITAIN'S?"


LOYD GEORGE's speech varied from passionate earnestness to free and easy facetiousness; an instance of the latter was his sardonic remark in reply to the opinion that "What the country wants is less brilliancy and a change to something a little more dull and ordinary." He said: "There ought to be no difficulty in supplying from among my critics any number of suitable candidates that would fulfill that description." The personal and familiar note was struck again when he said: "I have been treated by some of the London press as if I old actor whom fashionable circles in London have no use for. But, gentlemen, I can still go touring the provinces." There was no jocosity in Lloyd George's treatment of the Eastern situation. Astonishingly direct and open to attack was his remark:

Our critics say: "Why didn't you have an understanding with your allies?" We did. Only a few weeks ago we received a message from the French Government that if the Greeks or the Turks invaded the neutral zone they would have to be resisted by force by the Allies. We accepted that. We thought they meant it. How were we to believe it was only intended for one side? Nothing was more earnestly put in the whole address than Lloyd George's reply (after his statement that since 1914 the Turks had slaughtered 500,000 Armenians and 500,000 Greeks) to the supposed question, "What business is it of Britain's?" He said: "That was not the old Liberal policy. It was not the policy

certainly that I was brought up in. It was not what I was taught in my youth that Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen should every morning repeat reverently the litany of the cynic: 'Am I my brother's keeper?'-that Great Britain should face the world with the brand of Cain upon her brow." In line with this the Premier pointed out the vital importance of securing the Straits against what happened in 1914: "Vital to us, vital to humanity, we could not have those Straits barred without giving away the biggest important prize we had won by the victory over Turkey in the Great War, and which had cost us so much in life and treasure."

Mr. Chamberlain, who was no less outspoken in his defense of the British action in the Near East than was the Premier, declared that there were moments when danger of attack on the British forces at Chanak was imminent and that the criticism of opponents included language "the only effect of which could be to weaken the Government authority, encourage the Kemal ists, and present the British Empire to France as a humble satellite in the orbit of French policy, bound to exercise no independent judgment or take independent action."

These two addresses and that of Mr. Bonar Law, who declared that withdrawal from the neutral zone would have been regarded throughout the whole Mussulman world as defeat for the British Empire, certainly show that the most prominent leaders of the Coalition are ready to enter a political contest with an undivided front. If the Opposition should win, Mr. Lloyd George will have the opportunity to criticise from the side-lines. He indicated some skepticism as to whether his opponents would find their job an easy one: "I've had a long spell and a pretty hard one," he declared, and added: "I'll watch, for instance, to learn how to forgive Germany her reparations and yet make France love us more than ever. I'll watch how we are to pay the United States, yet forgive every other country

everything they owe us. I'll watch how you work the educational system, giving more to the unemployed, yet lightening taxes."


N December 2 next the port of Tsing

O`tau will be turned over by Japan

to China. The announcement of the forthcoming transfer has been made by the Japanese Government. The prophets of evil, who have tried to discredit Japan's word, have only about six weeks. in which to hope for some accident to thwart this honorable act.

If this proceeding were the aftermath of a war between the two countries, it would signify a great victory for China. As it is, the withdrawal of Japan from this Chincse port signifies as well a great and notable victory for Japan. It virtually completes the settlement of oi.e of the most perplexing and irritating of recent international questions-the question of Shantung. Nothing in the Versailles Treaty aroused more irritation in America than the provision which, by recognizing Japan's succession to the German lease of territory on Kiaochau Bay and the control of the railway from Tsingtau to Tsinanfu, gave to Japan virtual economic control of the most sacred and one. of the richest of China's provinces. On the other hand, nothing which occurred at the Armament Conference at Washington was more of a diplomatic achievement than the agreement reached between China and Japan for the restoration to China of the rights which Japan held in Shantung by virtue of conquest over Germany and of international law.

It would be hard to find in all diplo matic history a problem more compli cated by a snarl of moral rights, lega' rights, national sensitiveness, economic considerations, and Oriental intrigue. That it has been settled without clash of arms, without even recourse to arbitration, but by mutual agreement, with the friendly counsel of other nations, is creditable alike to China and Japan, and is as favorable an omen of peace and


justice among nations as is to be found anywhere in the world to-day.



HE football season has brought with it the usual amount of space-filling comment from the legion of sport writers. The oracle of Delphi could have learned much from many of these writers concerning the fine art of nonincriminating prophecy. To many of these writers should also be apportioned due share of the blame for the championship mania which has undermined our amateur standards.

It seems to us that the chief function of the football writer should be the effort to make the game as intelligible as possible to the public which has not had the benefit of playing the game. Real football experts could find ample material in this field to fill any number of newspaper columns. But probably it is much easier to fill their space with such statements as "undoubtedly the Hoozis Wildcats will be weaker than the Whatsat Bohemoths if the Whatsat Bohemoths are not stronger than the Hoozis Wildcats, but on the other hand..."

We need "quote" no further-the formula can be repeated to infinity, like the pattern on a wall-paper.




WO earnest attempts to abolish the abuses of child labor have failed because the Federal laws enacted for that purpose have been declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Therefore the only way of bringing the Federal power to bear is to amend the Constitution. This is the ground now taken by the friends of the movement against excessive child labor. The Secretary of the National Child Labor Committee some months ago announced his belief that it would now be folly to attempt to deal with the matter in any other way, and his position has been sustained by utterances from others all over the country, including some from the South, where State's rights feeling is so strong.

It is evident that if an Amendment to the United States Constitution is to be passed it should be permissive, not compulsory; that is, it should give Congress power to pass an enforcing law which should meet the requirements of the United States Constitution as amended, but it should not require that such a law should be passed.

There seems to be a tendency among those who have not looked into this question to suppose that agitation has

led to such regulative State legislation as to reduce the evil substantially. This is a mistake. There are only two ways of making child labor conditions what they should be. One is that already indicated-namely, by an Amendment to the Constitution; the other is by the growth of public sentiment in the States to such an extent that the Legislatures shall pass really satisfactory and uniform laws and that the people shall then insist upon their enforcement.

Recent reports as to actual conditions show that the laws are lax in no fewer than twenty-eight States; that, for instance, in Georgia children twelve years old may be worked ten hours a day and children fourteen and a half all night long, while none of the twenty-eight States referred to come up to the reasonable standards fixed by the two Federal laws which have been discarded. The United States Children's Bureau has quite recently issued a special report relating to excessive child labor in the anthracite mining districts. In one area of about half a mile square all the living conditions were found to be such that they were injurious to the health of the children, while the schools were deficient and about 1,350 out of 3,000 of the boys and girls between thirteen and sixteen years of age had left school for work. Moreover, more than five hundred of the boys employed in connection with mining were, says the report, employed contrary to law because below the legal age, while a considerable number of them not yet sixteen years of age were employed underground.

These facts, and very many others that might be quoted, certainly show that the child is urgently in need of protection from the United States Government. The form of Amendment which has been suggested by the National Child Labor Committee is certainly moderate. It reads as follows:

Congress shall have power to regulate or forbid the labor of minors at an age, or under conditions, deemed injurious to their health or morals. Such power shall be concurrent and not exclusive and the exercise thereof by Congress shall not prevent any State from adopting other or further regulations, not inconsistent therewith.

Reports show that an enormous number of young children are now engaged in work unsuitable for them who would be in school to-day if the last Federal act had stood the test of the courts. The form of amendment which the Child Labor Committee proposes is too specifically confined to one aspect of protective welfare legislation, and is therefore not the best that can be devised; but there is need of doing something, and of doing it soon. As Mr. Lovejoy, of the National Committee, says: "A nation

that cannot protect its own children from industrial exploitation should be ashamed of itself. It should at least There is no have the power to do so. democracy in permitting backward 10calities to use up childhood. We might as well speak of a democracy of robbery, of murder."




EOPLE who are inconsistent are always a disappointment. They are particularly disappointing when one happens to be looking for sincere opponents with whom to argue.

We know of one man who lost a valuable friendship because his "preachin' and practice" didn't "gee." And he lost his friend by doing something which that friend was willing to die for.

It happened during the early days of the war. The inconsistent gentleman was a pacifist. His consistent friend was a devout believer in the cause of the Allies we shall therefore adopt momentarily the pacifist nomenclature and call him, for the purpose of this editorial. Mr. Militarist. Before the United States had entered the war Mr. Militarist had served in France in the Ambulance Corps and had returned to America only in the hope of enlisting under his own flag. While moving heaven and earth to get into the service he roomed with Mr. Pacifist, who had for many months been preaching the avoidance of military duties. Mr. Militarist, believing in the sincerity of his friend, gave him counsel as to the proper occasion for registering his protest against the draftwhether the fight should be made at the time of registration or on the day he should be called to the colors. When the call came, however, Mr. Pacifist meekly donned the uniform and went off to camp. Mr. Militarist, we believe, hås never spoken to him since. He lost his friend, not because he differed from him in opinion, but because he found him lacking in the courage to be consistent. Similarly, we find that some of the pacifists who are still working for that very desirable end-the abolition of war -are appealing to convictions which they themselves shrink from following to the end.

On the back of a recent issue of the "Nation" we find a page advertisement appealing to American citizens in the following words:

[blocks in formation]

the existing order. Have you failed to revolt against this? ...

Those of us who know that war is always wrong will work together.

At the bottom of this appeal is a pledge which the reader is asked to sign, which reads as follows:

I affirm that it is my intention never to aid in or sanction war, offensive or defensive, international or civil, in any way, whether by rendering military service, making or handling munitions, subscribing to war loans, using my labor for the purpose of setting others free for war service, helping by money or work any relief organization which supports or condones war.

The inconsistency of this pacifist appeal is to be found, we think, in the pledge which we have just quoted. It covers much, but it does not cover enough. If the philosophy of the preceding appeal is to be carried to its logical conclusion, it demands absolute nonresistance. A man or a woman who accepts this philosophy cannot say, or rather should not say: "I will resist some things and will refuse to resist others. I will not resist the attack of a nation, but I will resist the attack of a thug. I will not support soldiers, but I will support policemen." The pledge, it seems to us, should have an additional clause. This clause might read: "I will pay no taxes either directly or indirectly to any National, State, or municipal government which uses force for the purpose of maintaining law and order.”

Only by extending the pledge to this limit can its demands be made logical and complete. A subscriber to such a pledge would at least not be inconsistent in declining to follow in the wicked footsteps of Florence Nightingale. Surely the breed of martyrs has deteriorated if our present variety is willing to ignore the logic of their principles for the sake of avoiding the inconvenience of refusing to pay taxes.

[blocks in formation]

terity. In literature, in music, in sculpture, in painting, in architecture, we have produced no men of equal eminence. We are a nation of action rather than of artistry. When Theodore Roosevelt published his volume, "The Strenuous Life," he prefixed to it a quotation from Tennyson's "Ulysses" containing these lines:

How dull it is to pause, to make an end,

To rust unburnished, not to shine in


The English artist summed up the energy of an irresistible and permanently inspiring American statesman. No such driving force had emerged in our public life for many decades. Indeed, it begins to appear that Theodore Roosevelt was and is the greatest exponent of American spiritual energy. It is still less than four years since his death-and here one thinks of Browning's words, "Never say of me that I am dead"-yet his fame seems already secure and his birthday is sure to be more and more widely celebrated as the years go by. "They must needs be men of lofty stature," says Hazlitt, "whose shadows lengthen out to remote posterity." Roosevelt was one of those men.

No better proof of his unquenchable energy for righteousness could have been supplied than during the period, six years after he had retired from the Presidency, from May, 1915, to April, 1917. It is no exaggeration to say that during that bitter time he was the great awakener of his country's soul, the real leader of our spiritual forces.

The moral indignation of his writings recalled a Carlyle or a Swift. His capacity for action went into his pen; its results were cumulative and sure. While men of lesser stature were counseling timidity and profits from munitions, he foresaw the part which America must perforce assume. And he did not die until the triumph was won. Figuratively but none the less actually he carried the flag and led the charge.

Like all great fighters, he loved a fight only for its results in righteousness. In these days of unsettled policies, of fierce industrial conflict, it is salutary to remember that Theodore Roosevelt was a statesman, not a politician. He never vulgarly asked, "What is there in it for me?" but, "How can I country and my time?" With mean struggles for financial advantage he was never in sympathy. He regarded "malefactors of great wealth" and of labor unions with equal abhorrence. He called American citizens to service for their country which in the end means true advantage for themselves. He looked beyond the hilltops, not into the slime. The man with a muckrake, the man who lights

the destructive torch or loosens railway ties, he considered a low type of human animal. The forces of unrighteousness had good reason to fear his tremendous energy and his searching intellect. The feeble poison of their attacks on him had small effect, however, upon the public mind-and still less upon his own mind. He knew that his country would remember his services, whether in the matter of settling a coal strike or acquiring a Panama Canal or putting America on record as participant in the greatest of historic struggles to overthrow a ruth less military tyranny. Such an example of leadership as his is not dimmed in death; it does not rust unburnished, it shines in use. For it is the sword of the Republic, which he kept bright and handed on.

The astonishing thing about Roosevelt, however, was that he was not only a great man of action but a mirror of the best in American culture. An indefatigable reader, observer, and talker, he absorbed information and inspiration in the same manner, one thinks, that Shakespeare absorbed them. At one moment he was lunching in the White House with a noble leader of the Negro race; at another he was encouraging a poet who since has risen to the foremost rank among us. Like Goethe, he looked once into a book and twice into human nature; like Arnold, he felt that it is conduct which makes up three-fourths of life; like Emerson, he believed in a kind of mystical common sense which can hitch a wagon not merely to a horse but to a star. There was no useful and noble side of American life that he did not touch. If he lacked the austere and Scriptural simplicity of Lincoln, he had the same magical understanding of the common people, the same enduring sympathy with them. He walked with kings or with plowmen with the same easy stride and the same born comradeship. No name since Lincoln's evokes such popular enthusiasm; and none is so worthy of it. We have no Westminster Abbey in which are buried the best of those that served their country and mankind; but in our American temple of silent admirations we have merely to mention the name of Theodore Roosevelt to awaken echoes of his greatness.

"The end of a man," said a remarkable writer, "is an action and not a thought, however noble." In these United States we have not yet retired to the library to compose masterpieces. Our greatest men are still in the open, under the sun or the stars. They build | industrial empires, structures of steel or of statesmanship. They make ready a vast territory for later leisure and for perfection of culture. They serve a country still young and with the head

long impetuosity of youth. They have found that "something lost behind the ranges" which has always waited for ex

plorers, for pioneers. The best reminder of Roosevelt's spirit which his death evoked was a drawing, by a Western

artist, of a fiery rider up the trail toward the mountain ranges which hold our hopes and our dreams.




WO anecdotes in which Theodore Roosevelt centers may be of interest, especially because the second has direct relation to the present world situation.

The first incident took place when I was an undergraduate at Harvard. There was a serious question at the time as to whether intercollegiate football might not be abolished by the College Faculty. Very strong opposition to such a move was felt by the student body. It was when this subject was the main topic of discussion in the college halls at Cambridge that President Roosevelt spoke to us in the Harvard Union. The great assembly hall of the Union was packed with undergraduates, and when Roosevelt came in and waved his hand to the crowd he was received with a fine ovation. In the middle of his speech he turned to the subject of intercollegiate athletics, and, with that vigor and enthusiasm which he threw into any cause in which he believed, he said, "I believe in intercollegiate football." A great roar went up from the crowd that shook the very roof. When the applause had died away, he leaned forward and said in a clear, quiet voice: "And I also believe in good hard study. I believe in scholarship." Raising his hand to his ear, as though listening, he said: "I don't hear so much enthusiasm about that. Where are your cheers?" This produced a good deal of laughter and hand-clapping.

The next time I met Roosevelt was on the platform of the railway station at Syracuse. With a group of friends, I was coming to Boston from the West. The conductor told us that Roosevelt's car had been attached to ours during the night, but he added, "Roosevelt had given instructions that he does not wish to see any one." It happened that I was the only Harvard graduate in the group in our car, though there were several Yale men. I suggested that there was a way by which we could easily get Roosevelt, but that they must be willing to give a Harvard cheer. So we all piled out on the station platform under the windows of Roosevelt's car and there we gave a good rousing Harvard cheer with "Teddy" three times on the end. In five seconds there he was climbing down the steps to the platform, both arms reaching out to us, and that wonderful smile of his, with the old familiar "de-lighted" on his lips.

At that time I had just returned from Asia Minor, where I had witnessed the fearful deportations on the Bagdad Rail

road, and could give him first-hand information of the awful atrocities going on. He asked me a number of questions, continually shaking his head and say ing, "Terrible," "Terrible," "Terrible." Then, with a tense expression on his face, he said: "Mr. Harlow, the greatest regret that I have as I look back on my Administration is the fact that when that awful Adana massacre occurred this Government did not take steps against that outrage on civilization."

My readers may remember that when Roosevelt gave his inspiring message to the American Army he was criticised in some places because he included the Turks in his address and urged our boys to do all in their power to defeat the Germans and the Austrians, and the Turks.

I wonder what Theodore Roosevelt would say to-day, when in the name of humanity we drew the sword and sent our sons to France, when we declared that, though we were the "last to come, we will be the last to stay, till right has had her crowning day."

I have just listened to the contents of a letter sent by one of our boys on an American destroyer at Smyrna. He tells of having to stand by while the bruta! Turkish soldiers seized beautiful Christian girls and tore them screaming from their mothers and outraged them right on the public quay of Smyrna. He saw these brutal soldiers shooting down helpless women with children in their arms, unarmed men beaten to death by the gun butts of these Turkish soldiery. And then he tells of his anguish that the orders of our Government were such that he had to stand by, helpless, before such atrocities.

America to-day is the strongest and most powerful nation in the world, the richest nation in the world. We pledged (in terms of idealism such as had never before been attained by a people on a nation-wide scale) to lay all our treasure and manhood on the altar of freedom and humanity. Those were not idle words then,

When the war came to an end, those great problems which most affected the happiness and welfare of countless thousands-yes, millions-waited to be solved. We were definitely asked to accept responsibility in the Near East. The Harbord Commission said that it might take two divisions of men and some millions of dollars. We could have disarmed the entire population. Turks, Greeks, and Armenians longed for our coming, yes, prayed for it. As the Har

bord Commission stated, if justice, humanity, and a great opportunity to render service on a wide scale were taken into consideration, there was only one path to follow. As the Chairman of the Near East Commission at the Versailles Conference declared: "The greatest opportunity that ever came to a nation to render humane service on a large scale knocked at America's doors. The zero hour struck, and America refused to go over the top." As Dr. Conrad declared in Symphony Hall, Boston, this week, and as Harry Fosdick in the very same words declared in New York City recently, America's attitude in the present world situation "smells to heaven."

Yesterday five hundred thousand helpless Christians were done to death, and not a single protest against the cruelty, the inhumanity, and the injustice has been raised by the American Government. We have expressed sympathy; we have sent relief "for Americans only;" but we have not uttered a word of warning as a Government to the criminals, and we have asserted again and again as a Government that we do not intend to interfere. Nearly two million helpless, unarmed Christians await massacre and death in Constantinople and Thrace. The Near East Relief has all the evidence that the massacre in Constantinople has been definitely planned, that the city has been even divided into areas, with the amount of money the Christians in each area possess. It is not Turkey, or the Allied nations who stand to-day alone at the bar of justice. America stands there too, and when history is written may God help us! Our statesmen, our leaders, call themselves Christians. Many of them are officers in the Christian Church. They are supposed to have pledged their loyalty to the God of humanity above their loyalty to any party or any policy. And yet to-day, I ask, where is the voice in America of any statesman or of any Government official that is sounding out, not sweet nothings of sympathy, but stern denunciation and warning to the Turkish Government against these unspeakable atrocities? The only voice I can think of from a man who has held a high Government position is that of Henry Morganthau; but when I think of Roosevelt, and of what this situation would have stirred him to, I cannot help but repeat those familiar words

"O for the touch of a hand that is gone and the sound of a voice that is still!"

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][graphic][merged small]
« AnteriorContinuar »