National. The next day I was asked to take the permanent chairmanship of the Convention. This I was willing and glad to do; also it was a foregone conclusion that acceptance of the chairmanship excluded me as a candidate for the nomination for Governor.

LIKE AN ENORMOUS TOWN MEETING

The Arena was filled with about seven thousand delegates and members of the new Progressive party. The air was surcharged with the spirit of the new movement-the genuine enthusiasm of men and women of character and standing from every county in the State, and among them a great many ministers, professors, reformers, and leaders of benevolent and charitable movements. There was a conspicuous absence of the professional politician. Indeed, that Convention had more the character of a town meeting than of a cut-and-dried olitical convention.

On September 6 I took my gavel in

hand and called the meeting to order. The first business before the Convention was the nomination of a candidate for Governor. The outstanding candidates for nomination were William H. Hotchkiss, one of the organizers of the Progressive party and chairman of the National Committee, and William A. Prendergast, Comptroller of the City of New York, who had made the speech nominating Roosevelt for President at the Chicago Convention. A deadlock between these two candidates ensued.

After Yates County had been heard from, a tall, gaunt young man towered to his feet and asked to be heard; he was from the Fifteenth Manhattan District, and he had a nomination to make. It was not quite in order, though the spirit of the Convention was to give each man a chance. While I was hesitating about recognizing him, there seemed to be a general desire that he be given an opportunity to speak, so I gave him five minutes.

He looked fantastic as he strode to the platform and faced the audience. His manner was somewhat bizarre. He burst forth in dramatic fashion as follows:

Fellow-citizens, ladies and gentlemen: I have just come down from Vermont. I ask you people at this Convention to make no mistake. We want to put a man up for Governor that no man will be afraid to cast his vote for, against whom there can be no charge leveled of misconduct of any kind, one who can sweep the State from Montauk Point to Lake Erie, and carry every man of every race, religion, and creed; a man whose name is known throughout the civilized world; a man the mention of whose name brings a tear of sympathy to the eye of almost every man and woman in the civilized land; a man whose name, wherever men are found with red blood in their veins, irrespective of race, religion, and creed, will be carried thundering throughout the State to victory.

There is no chance for defeat with this man at the head of the ticket"Who is your candidate?" cried impatient listeners.

"What's his name?"

"Name your candidate!"

In sudden answer to these cries from the Convention, the speaker exclaimed: I nominate the illustrious and honorable Oscar S. Straus.

During the long, terrific applause that followed, the delegate stood awkwardly waiting for a chance to finish. Finally he went on:

We should take no chances in this fight. I could not say one undeserved word if I used the entire dictionary in praise of the other nominees, Mr. Hotchkiss and Mr. Prendergast; but, gentlemen, Mr. Prendergast or Mr. Hotchkiss would cause friction in the State. We want no friction in this election. We want success and victory.

There is not a newspaper editor in the State of New York that would any more assassinate the character of Oscar S. Straus than he would assassinate the character of his own mother.

Gentlemen, remember! Remember that Rome was saved by the cackle of geese. I have no political prestige. but I warn and charge you, put up a man for candidate for Governor who cannot and will not be defeated. Make no mistake about Oscar S. Straus. You will make no mistake in putting him up as your candidate, and you will capture victory and success. No man has had better distinction at home and abroad than Mr. Straus. I ask you to vote for, him.

The moment he finished, a stampede started. The entire hall assumed the aspect of a good-natured bedlam. There was cheering and applause, and many of the delegates began marching round that big auditorium, brandishing the banners of their counties, singing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "Onward, Christian Soldiers," and breaking

out in the end with "Straus! Straus! We want Straus!"

NOMINATED FOR GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK

I pounded the desk with the gavel, I shook my head in the negative, but to no avail. The noise lasted fully twenty minutes.

The picturesque young man who had precipitated this scene was John G. McGee, known among his colleagues as "Suspender Jack." He had been a member of the mounted police of New York City.

Meanwhile Mr. Hotchkiss and several other leaders came to the platform and insisted upon my accepting. They even brought Mrs. Straus up, with the hope of getting her to exert her persuasive powers. There was no alternative; I had to accept.

Mr. Hotchkiss announced my acceptance, and immediately former Lieutenant-Governor Timothy L. Woodruff announced the withdrawal of Mr. Prendergast and moved to make the nomination unanimous by acclamation. That produced more shouting, cheering, and waving of banners. It was a touching manifestation and an unexpected honor. I made a brief speech of acceptance, during which I found it difficult to hide the effect of all this demonstration. The next morning the Convention named for Lieutenant-Governor Frederick M. Davenport, who was Professor of Law and Politics at Hamilton College and had made an admirable record in the State Legislature. The ticket was then quickly completed and the Convention closed.

Roosevelt was in the Far West conducting his own campaign, and wrote me from Spokane:

Dear Straus:

September 8, 1912.

When I left New York I had expected Prendergast to be nominated and there were certain reasons, which I think you know, why I felt that, as a matter of principle, his nomination should be made.

But there was a still further principle involved, and that was that in this Convention the people should have their own way; and, upon my word, I am inclined to think that it was a new illustration of the fact that the wisdom of all of us is better than the wisdom of any of us. Having in view the effect, not only in New York but the country at large, I think that your nomination stands second only to that of Hiram Johnson as VicePresident, from the standpoint of strengthening the ticket. If the only result of the next election were to place you in as Governor of New York, I should be inclined to think that the Progressive party had justified itself.

My dear fellow, I am overjoyed; I congratulate you with all my heart. Give my love to dear Mrs. Straus and to Roger and your two daughters and all the grandchildren.

Ever yours,

THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

(C) Underwood

is an ex-Republican, the other an exDemocrat; they both stand for what is highest in American citizenship.

Mr. Straus is not merely a highminded and able man, a man of incorruptible integrity and great ability, but also a man who has kept abreast of the great movement from which sprang the Progressive party. He is eminently fitted to be one of the leaders in this movement. On every point of our platform he represents an intense earnestness of conviction for all the things for which we stand. His attitude toward business, his attitude toward the complicated and the vitally important social and economic problems which are dealt with in our plank concerning social and industrial justice; in short, his whole position on governmental matters has been such as to warrant our saying that he is already in practice applying the very principles which we preach.

New York State has a right to be proud of the fact that in this first State Convention of the people themselves Mr. Straus's nomination was, in the most emphatic sense, a nomination by the people themselves, a nomination representing the desire of the people to have the very best man take the office, although that man was himself sincerely desirous to escape having to take it.

I have known Mr. Straus intimately ever since I was Governor of New York. When he was in my Cabinet, I leaned much upon him, and a more loyal and disinterested friend no man could have, and, what is more important, no man could have a more loyal,

disinterested, and sanely zealous supporter. As head of the Department of Commerce and Labor Mr. Straus himself, by study and administration of the law, was one of those who reached conclusions as to the needs of our handling of the Anti-Trust and Inter-State Commerce and similar laws, which I set forth in Message after Message to Congress, and which were substantially embodied in the Progressive platform; and in his attitude toward labor, toward immigration, toward the duty both of public and private employees, he foreshadowed that part of the Progressive platform which has dealt with these same matters.

Moreover, by his disintcrestedness, his unselfish devotion to the cause of good government and of sound progressive doctrine for economic and social reform, and by his willingness personally to sacrifice his own interests to those of the cause he espouses, he is, I am happy to say, typical of all men who are in the new movement.

The Republicans telegraphed me to inquire whether I would accept the Republican nomination. They feared that with three candidates in the field the State would go Democratic. One of my managers favored my acceptance, which would without doubt have meant election. But my chief adviser, Chairman Hotchkiss, agreed with me that my accepting the Republican nomination, without the indorsement by the Republicans of the Progressive platform, would destroy the Progressive party in the State, if not throughout the country. I therefore replied that I could not accept a nomination that did not mean an indorsement and acceptance of the platform on which I stood.

On hearing of this, Roosevelt tel graphed me from Memphis: Grp.

cheers for you. You are a perfect trump and you always do the right thing."

STUMPING THE STATE

The Republican candidate was Job E. Hedges, a brilliant member of the New York bar. The Democrats nominated William Sulzer, and Tammany Hall sanctioned the selection because he was considered a good opponent who would attract the Jewish vote. But our politicians make no greater mistake than to believe that there is such a thing as a Jewish group vote. However, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign

Affairs of the House, Sulzer had taken a prominent part in the abrogation of our treaty with Russia, and during the campaign the slogan, "Non-Jewish but pro-Jewish," was designed to bring him the support of the mass of Jewish voters in addition to the regular Democratic vote.

On the whole, the campaign was conducted with dignity on all sides. There was a noticeable absence of vilification of candidates and general mud-slinging between the camps, as is too often the case in keenly contested elections. My managers arranged for me to make addresses in every county and almost every city throughout the State. I had a special car in which traveled, besides myself and wife, Mr. Davenport, and several other speakers, a dozen or more reporters from the leading papers.

I traveled for seven weeks, making ten to fifteen speeches every day except Sundays, including short talks at stations and from the rear platform of my car. So many clergymen took part in the campaign that frequently the meetings were opened with a prayer. Many of the meetings were spontaneous, emphasizing the crusading spirit so characteristic of the campaign.

One of my slogans was that I was the "unbossed candidate of the unbossed people." One day up in the northern part of the State I was speaking on a raised platform in the open, and, as usual, my time was limited by the train schedule. A member of the Committee told my wife, who was sitting behind me, that the train would leave in a few minutes, and that it was time for me to stop, and just as I got to the middle of the phrase, "unbossed candidate-" she pulled my coat tail as a signal for me to stop. At that moment I was quite evidently not the "unbossed candidate" that I professed to be, and the audience laughed and cheered with amusement. I think that bit of bossing, however, did not cost me any votes.

Mr. Davenport proved himself a most effective campaign speaker. Another effective orator in our party for a short time was Bainbridge Colby, who discharged with great distinction the important duties of Secretary of State during the last year of the Wilson Administration. At Oneonta and at one or o other places while I was taking a h-needed rest, the crowds had gath and were calling for me. Mr.

Colby, without being introduced, responded for me, and the audiences were left with the impression that they had listened to me. My cause certainly did not suffer by my being so admirably represented, or perhaps I should say advantageously misrepresented.

ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF ROOSEVELT

Roosevelt in the meantime had flung himself into the campaign with all the force of his tremendous vigor and energy, and gave to it a dynamic impulse that grew in intensity as he progressed through the country. In October he started on his final tour through the Middle West, and it was while on this trip that he was shot by a lunatic just as he was leaving his hotel to make a speech in the Auditorium in Milwaukee. The incident, tragic in itself, was made dramatic by his heroism. With the bullet in his breast and his clothes soaked with blood, disregarding the entreaties of his companions, he went on to the Auditorium and spoke for more than an hour. To him nothing counted except the triumph of the principles for which he was fighting.

In consequence of this accident the National managers had me leave the State of New York and take up the National campaign. No one, of course, could fill Roosevelt's engagements, but the plan was to rescue the cause so far as possible, and I spoke in Chicago, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. My intense anxiety regarding the condition of my chief during this time was greatly relieved by assuring telegrams from both Mrs. Roosevelt and his nephew, George

Lloyd George, Rudyard Kipling, William Watson, Earl Grey, Georg Brandes, Henri Bergson, Rodin, the Kings of Italy and of Spain, and other celebrated personages move rapidly through the next chapter of Mr. Straus's Autobiography, entitled "Personal Vignettes," which appears next week in The Outlook. A memorable visit to Skibo Castle, as the guest of Andrew Carnegie, is described. The reader is taken to the Peace Palace at The Hague. Recollections of Disraeli, from the lips of intimate friends, are carefully reported. This fascinating chapter of personalities concludes with some amazing evidences of a Spanish and Jewish origin of Christopher Columbus.

Emlen Roosevelt, who were both at his side.

Two final rallies were arranged in Madison Square Garden, New York-one on Wednesday, October 30, for the National ticket, and the second on Friday, November 1, for the State ticket. Roosevelt, though not well, considered himself sufficiently recovered to appear. His physicians, Drs. Lambert and Brewer, had prescribed more campaign speeches-in fact, did not want him to go to these meetings; but he brushed aside their injunctions and left Oyster Bay for Madison Square.

no

His presence at the National rally was his first public appearance since the shooting, and keyed up the meeting to a high dramatic pitch. Fully eighteen thousand persons were in the auditorium and a few thousand more were outside clamoring for admission. When Roosevelt appeared on the platform, a roar of applause broke loose and continued for forty-five minutes.

Roosevelt's speech, characteristically, was confined to a plea for the Progressive cause and for the State ticket; no word for himself. He appeared in good form and to possess his usual vigor, although it was observed that he did not use his right arm. His speech was earnest, calm, and exalted, closing with what he called his political creed:

I am glad beyond measure that I am one of the many who in this fight have stood ready to spend and be spent, pledged to fight while life lasts the great fight for righteousness and for brotherhood and for the welfare of mankind.

At the rally for the State ticket two nights later the crowd inside the Garden was as large as at the National rally. The enthusiasm was at the same high pitch. When I arose to speak, the cheering began and lasted twenty-seven minutes before it could be checked. Roosevelt was expected during the evening. His physicians had reminded him when he started from home that he had promised not to speak any more in the campaign, to which he replied that he had promised not to speak for himself, but that this time he would talk for Oscar Straus and Fred Davenport and the candidates on the judiciary ticket!

At the close of my thirty-minute address, Roosevelt appeared. The crowd went wild, and stopped cheering only when Mr. Hotchkiss, who was presiding, besought them to stop out of consideration for the Colonel. Roosevelt spoke for an hour and held that vast audience in rapt attention. He devoted the first half of his speech to outlining the Progressive cause, its meaning and purpose, and the second half to advocating the State ticket. He referred to my public career in terms of unmeasured praise, beginning with my first mission to Turkey. He told the crowd that everywhere he spoke, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. he had "found that the name of Oscar Straus was a name with which to

just such a family, and just such a family life, as I like to think of as typical of our citizenship at its best. With affectionate regard and esteem Faithfully yours

THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

The Progressives, as might have been expected, had been poorly organized. The time had been too short for intensive development of our forces. We had no machine, and in a number of the counties there was scarcely a skeleton of an organization. It was, in fact, not a party in the ordinary sense of the word at all, but rather a crusade, and what we lacked in organization we made up by an abundance of spontaneous ardor. We did not really expect victory, although Roosevelt several times said that while he knew he would be defeated, he thought I would be elected. As a matter of fact, I believe I was the only candidate of the Progressive cause for Governor in any State who ran ahead of Roosevelt. In New York State he got 389,000 votes, in round numbers, while I had 393,000.

I knew from observations during my campaign from one end of the State to the other, how poorly, from a political standpoint, the Progressives were organized, and I confess I did not see the slightest chance of being elected. I was not disappointed, and I think that the men generally who ran for offices on the Progressive ticket were not disappointed. They realized that their contest was waged for a cause and not for office, and from an educational point of view the campaign was eminently successful.

Considering the vastness of the undertaking and the shortness of the time, we did as well as any of us could have anticipated, if not better. We were confident that the cause would triumph, in a degree at least, no matter what party was in power, and I think the facts amply justify our belief that the Progressive ideals made a definite impression upon the country, and have given strength, if not dominant influence, to Progressive principles in both of the old parties.

I

N the old pre-war days it was my business to lecture at the British Army Staff College at Camberley upon great wars in which the British Empire might be involved (not only as to how to move armies and fleets about and how to win battles, but also about what went on behind armies and fleets, about finance and economics, and their influence upon the issue of wars). It was a big subject, about which, in common with my audience of staff officers in embryo of the British army, I knew next to nothing. We searched the city of London for an expert to come to Camberley and tell us about the effect of finance upon war under present-day conditions of international credit. After searching for three years, we came sadly to the conclusion that no such expert existed. There were some who claimed to have studied the effect of war upon finance, a very different affair. Even they had but little knowledge of their subject. The most reliable of them told us that if Britain intervened in a great European war it would cost us about four million dollars per day. It cost us nearer forty million dollars per day before we were through with it, and it left us heavily in debt to the United States.

International finance is a matter for experts. European nations are now tottering into chaos, famine, and civil tumult on account of recent developments in this international finance, and, as usual, experts disagree about the best remedy. Who shall decide? Great Britain used to be a creditor country; now she is a debtor country to the United States, and certainly not in a po

sition to help other people until she has paid her own debts. She cannot pay them at present out of what the bankrupt states owe her, but she obviously has to pay them. Her credit depends upon it, and credit is everything in international finance, as it is in all finance on a large scale. At least that is the view of the inexpert man in the street, whatever the experts or the men in public life who are guiding our destinies may say. In these circumstances, after all the learned disquisitions by the experts and the Balfour note which gives actual figures (with far too many ciphers for them to be grasped by the ordinary mind), the time seems to have come for the ordinary man to have a say in the matter. Disagreement between experts has an unfortunate tendency to spread to the nations which they represent, or to which they belong. I quote from memory, but the outstanding point is that Great Britain owes the United States nearly four billion dollars. What Great Britain did with the money is beside the point. As a matter of fact, it was spent in America upon munitions of war, but its equivalent was lent to Allies who, without it, would have been unable to carry on the war; the point is that the sum was borrowed and the man in the street means to see that it is paid back somehow; but how?

We used to be told at Camberley that business transactions between nations are very different from transactions between individuals, and that is now a commonplace remark. Individual men pay their debts in "money"-in gold, or in paper with gold or something else of

the nature of a token with a standard value behind it. There is no use in talking about paying a debt of four billion dollars in gold. The first reason (out of thirty-two) given by the commander of Tilbury fort to Queen Elizabeth for not firing a salute in her honor was that he had no powder. She was graciously pleased to dispense with the other reasons. The first reason why such a debt as I have mentioned cannot be paid in gold is similar to the Tilbury commander's reason for not saluting. There is no gold, when sums like that are involved. How, then, can the debt be paid? We are told by the experts that it could be paid by goods, by sending a lot of manufactured or partly manufactured articles over to America for nothing. We were taught at Camberley not to bother about statistics of imports and exports as indications of prosperity, but to remember that the best prosperity barometer to consult was employment. If a nation had few unemployed, that nation was prosperous, and vice versa. That means that sending manufactured or partly manufactured British goods to America in payment of the debt would be very bad for America, because unemployment would increase there. It would be very good for Britain, because employment would go up. It is true that the British workers would have to be paid by the British taxpayer, but that would not matter. At present he is paying millions of them a dole for doing nothing, and anything is better than that.

How, then, can Britain pay her huge debt to America, when the gold docs.

exist, and payment in goods would only do harm to Americans? If my late friend Sir Robert Giffen, the economist, were alive, he would say, by "invisible exports"-in other words, by services rendered. For instance, the British Government (in other words, the British taxpayer) could subsidize the British merchant service to carry goods about the world for nothing for American shippers. How would that work? The latest shipping returns show that the actual amount of British steam tonnage stands now at about the same figure that it did before the war, in spite of war losses, but the total world tonnage has gone up, so that the British percentage of the total is now only about 331⁄2 per cent,

compared with 44% per cent before the war. The principal reason for this is that American steam tonnage has increased enormously, by nearly 11,000,000, since 1914. Presumably it is desired to keep these vessels running. The question of doing so by subsidies is a controversial matter of great domestic concern to Americans, and one about which discussion emanating from elsewhere would very naturally be resented, but it is fairly obvious that "services rendered," in the way of cheap freights offered by British shipping, is not likely to be an acceptable method for Great Britain to discharge her debt to America.

We seem to be drifting into an eco

nomic morass. For the experts there may be some solution in view of the difficulty. Let us hope that they will find one. The man in the street cannot grasp the complications of international economics; he finds it easier to argue from the individual to the mass. If he wants to draw his money from a bank where it is lodged, he is accustomed to being asked, "How will you have it?" John Bull is at present in the position of a banker, with a debt to Jonathan, and it seems to the ordinary man in Great Britain to be high time to ask a similar question of his creditor, whom he has every intention of paying, if only he could be informed of any acceptable method of payment.

I

N this progressive day and age, when we seldom have to walk unless we wish to, we are beginning to realize what a splendid recreation walking is. A care-free rhythmic saunter along pleasant highways and byways brings health, cheer, and vision.

Now comes autumn, the golden time of the year for walking. It is the serene, soft-smelling season when sweltering days and annoying insects are of the past, the season of marvelous color torrents of russet browns, golden yellows, bronze reds, and flaming scarlets. The time of all times to go the foot-path way to the painted woods.

The pleasure of any walk is largely dependent upon the elimination of all sense of pain and discomfort. In fact, when you are getting the best out of walking you are unconscious of the presence of legs and feet. This condition is impossible unless the feet are wholly devoid of pain or blemish. A blister on the hand may be of slight consequence, but a blister on the foot is likely to mean distressing agony.

It is with various practical details of walking that the present article is concerned: feet, footgear, and the actual physical motion of walking. Most foot misery which interrupts the pleasure of a long hike is wholly preventable, and even when trouble does start it can oftentimes be stopped before well under way. An ounce of prevention is of course worth more than a pound of cure, but I will try to indicate both of these.

A fairly rough-and-ready piece of footgear having broad toe-caps and wide. low heels is quite the most suitable shoe for hiking provided it fits. But if it doesn't fit, it is almost as hard on the feet as pointed toes and French heels. The term "fit" as applied to hiking shoes is commonly misunderstood. When the average person buys a pair of shoes for city use, he or she is fitted in somewhat e same manner that a man is for a v hat; that is, comfortably snug.

And one can walk ten blocks in such shoes without any great discomfort, but if one were to go ten miles there would be a different story. Some people buy hiking shoes in this same manner. Which is a tragic beginning for any long walk.

A hiking shoe "fit" means a shoe which is at least a half size, and possibly a full size, larger than footgear which is ordinarily worn in average city use. Only around the heel and over the instep should there be permitted any suggestion of snugness. Blisters sometimes develop as a result of too much lateral play of the heel because of roominess of the shoe at this point, but, even so, these can oftentimes be prevented by lacing the shoe more tightly.

Of prime importance in a shoe are length, width, and height of toe-cap. During the course of a long, hard walk your feet change size, blood-vessels become distended, and the feet grow no ticeably larger. Tight-fitting shoes under such conditions are a forerunner of sore feet. Your feet must always have

NATALIE DE BOGORY

is a name which we always like to see at the head of an article in our morning mail. We think

that our readers share with us our enthusiasm for her interesting interpretations of the foreigners within our gates. A forthcoming Outlook article by Miss De Bogory is called "The Turning of the Tide."

It tells the story of sojourners in our country who are returning to their native lands. Some of their reasons for going back to Europe ought to make Americans do a little hard thinking.

free play; not enough to invite chafing, but a sufficient amount to allow them to function without constriction. In using the term "fit" I do not mean a shoe which is far too large for one.

We hear a great deal, and rightly so, concerning the evils of shoes which are too narrow, but not so much about shoes which are too short. Yet in some respects the short shoe is the worse offender of the two. During walking the toes have a way of working forward, and if with each step they meet a firm leather wall there is bound to be trouble in the form of toe blisters or similar abrasions. If the shoes are of sufficient length and still toe blisters threaten, these can usually be prevented by lacing the shoe more tightly. There is no cure, however, for a shoe which is too short. And the same may be said of the low stiff toe-cap. When blisters form on top of the toes, you may hold the toe-cap accountable for the damage.

In addition to the natural distention of the feet while walking there is the question of bulkiness of stockings to be considered. The wool-stocking habit so far as hiking is concerned is an excellent habit to acquire. To most hiking feet wool is far more satisfactory than cotton. Wet feet which are incased in wool are no special disadvantage, whereas with cotton the result may be a bad cold. Furthermore, the comfortable elasticity of wool on the feet serves a valuable purpose.

What has been said in regard to roominess of shoes applies to some extent to wool stockings. There is of course much greater elasticity to wool than leather, but the fact remains that stockings which have shrunken badly may play havoc with pedal comfort. Stockings should be neither so large that they wrinkle nor so small that they squeeze the feet. A tight, pinching stocking will start an ingrowing toe-nail about as quickly as will a tight shoe. Stockings which are badly shrunken