defeated, standing fourth among his ri vals, while the winning candidate was a prohibitionist. Lady Astor was re-elected by a vote of 13,000 after a lively and even bitter contest, throughout which she maintained her reputation for force, originality, and popularity. The election of the famous economist Sidney Webb as a Labor candidate is one of many indications that the English Labor Party is not made up solely of representatives of labor unions. Mr. H. G. Wells. the novelist and historian, was defeated in the London University election.

In the cases of Arthur Henderson and of some other notable defeats the comment of English papers is to the effect that, as a matter of course, a seat will be found for the person defeated. This means that some generous and supposedly less important member of the party who has been elected will resign and that his constituency will be kind enough to elect the defeated man. The technical process of such a proceeding is odd and, to an American, amusing. The defeated member takes "the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds." That is, he accepts a commission as a royal official for the district once known as the Chiltern Hundreds, and, having done this, he can and must resign his membership in Parliament, as a member cannot hold a royal commission of honor and profit. Thereupon some one is elected in his place, and he forthwith resigns his appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds, an office which has no duties, but a nominal salary of twenty shillings, which makes it a "place of honor and profit," and hence is inconsistent with membership in the House, and the office is open for the next member who wants to resign.

EUROPE AND THE NEAR EAST

A

s the Lausanne Conference on the Near Eastern problem opened there was a strongly optimistic feeling in the press of Europe. It seemed to be the general opinion that the Turks overplayed their hand in making extreme demands in advance. The result, unless all forecasts are mistaken, has been a genuine and positive drawing together of the Allies. Conferences between the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, and the French Premier, M. Poincaré, have brought about a mutual understanding as to what issues are really important. A new element entered when the Fascisti leader, Mussolini, now Premier of Italy, indicated pretty strongly that he would contend vigorously for equal rights for Italy in determining matters that affect her interests.

We in America are not so much interested in the exact drawing of boundaries as we are in the safety of Europe against Turkish aggression and war, the pro

(C) Underwood

tection of American citizens and of Christians generally against Turkish, Greek, or Balkan cruelty, and the preservation of trade and commerce.

The exodus from Thrace continues to be a heartrending spectacle. Whatever may be said of the faults of other Balkan nations, none of the non-Turkish races in the Balkan countries are willing to take the risk of fire and slaughter. These peoples in vast numbers are struggling from Western Thrace into Greece. One result is that the Turkish leaders are beginning to clamor for a plebiscite in Western Thrace, evidently believing that, since they have now frightened the Christian peoples away, a Turkish majority might perhaps be obtained.

The two things which are expected to

Photo by Abbe

FRANK BACON AS BILL JONES

receive most attention at Lausanne are whether Turkey shall be allowed to fortify the Straits and whether the longestablished system of the so-called capitulations shall be abolished by Turkey. In the one case Turkey would be free to make closed seas of the waters east of the Straits; in the other, the protection needed by foreigners living and doing business in Turkey would disappear.

The flight of the Sultan from Constantinople on a British ship and the appointment by the Nationalist Assembly of Abdul Medjid to be Caliph (but not Sultan) are important only as indicating the complete ascendency of the Kemalists.

FRANK BACON, ACTOR

TH

HEORETICALLY the dramatic critic demands of a play that it should at least have reasonable construction and a well-balanced cast of interesting characters; but once in a while there appears a play which defies the canons of criticism and yet deserves the success it wins because of one single character that dominates the play, makes plot and the other players insignificant, and delights audiences, simply because the actor and the part are one. Familiar examples are Joe Jefferson's "Rip Van Winkle" and Warfield's "The Music Master." To these must be added Frank Bacon's "Lightnin'." He played the part in New York for 1,291 consecutive performances and had acted it 2,000 times altogether, when in Chicago he was stricken with the heart attack that resulted in his death on November 19.

Mr. Bacon created the part of Lightnin' Bill Jones in a double sense, for he not only played Lightnin', but he

vented and shaped the character in the writing of the play, with collaboration in other parts and in the construction. There have been, we believe, some at tempts to produce the play without Frank Bacon in the cast, but it would be an extremely good imitator that could satisfy any one who had enjoyed Bacon's slow drawl, dry humor, cheery optimism, gentle friendliness, and altogether lovable personality. One feels sure that these were qualities of the man as well as of the actor-and those who knew him confirm the impression. His great success followed forty years of hard work as actor and manager. Few actors of our time have given such pleasure to so large a number of people.

ROBIN PLUS DOUGLAS

THE

HERE is always romance in Robin Hood, whether we find him in the old ballads, or Sir Walter's "Ivanhoe," or in the well-known comic opera, or in the remarkable moving picture now being enjoyed by countless thousands. As Douglas Fairbanks plays the rôle, he is part Robin, part Puck, and part "Doug." Robin as thus shown does not quite correspond to the excellent description of him written long since as "the ideal outlaw, courteous, liberal, and reverent." Even in the first part, where Mr. Fairbanks is the chivalrous Earl of Huntington and his agility is for the most part kept under the restraint suited to a champion of the tournament, antics are introduced that are hardly knightly, and this peer of the realm is made to act as if he had never seen a gentle lady before in his life. When he becomes Robin Hood in the forest, he does not act the part; he skips, runs, and jumps it, and always with the engaging grin that gains the affection even of critics. For the skilled and careful work of the actor who lives his part we must look in this film play to Mr. Wallace Beery, who plays the part of Richard the LionHearted, and to Mr. De Grasse, the villainous Prince John. But Douglas is Douglas, and no one at heart wants him to be a great actor.

Dramatically speaking, the play has been constructed with skill; its action carries on; plot and continuity hang together; the spectator does not become listless or uninterested-quite the contrary.

As a brilliant spectacle and as an elaborate attempt to picture twelfthcentury people, their costumes, customs, wars, weapons, castles, huts, wealth, poverty, tragedy, and jollity, "Robin Hood" is truly remarkable. The attention to detail is as noteworthy as the setting and the mass movements of soldiers, knights, horses, and crowds. The etion is so rapid (often decidedly too

rapid) that one really needs to see the play a second time to recognize in full the interest of the details and to appreciate the magnitude of the care and thought that have been given to the production and the designing of this ambitious and almost stupendous drama.

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE JAPANESE

T

QUESTION

HE opinions recently delivered by the United States Supreme Court through Mr. Justice Sutherland in connection with the question as to whether Japanese aliens in this country may have a right to naturalization have a wide bearing on racial as well as legal questions.

There were two cases, but both practically rested on the same questions. We will briefly state the facts in one case. A young Japanese living in Hawaii applied to the United States District Court for that Territory in 1914 for citizenship in the United States. It is interesting to recall what we said at the time, that this man, by name Takao Ozawa, was so well thought of by the white people in Hawaii that many white professional men and business men contributed to a fund to provide expense money for the testing of his right to naturalization. Ozawa was born in Japan, brought to this country as a boy, lived here twenty years, was a graduate of a California high school, and had three years in the University of California. He was married, his children went to American schools, his family attended American churches, and they all spoke English perfectly. The present decision specifically says, "That he was well qualified by character and education for citizenship is conceded."

The Federal District Court of Hawaii denied his petition, holding that as one born in Japan and being of the Japanese race he was not eligible to naturalization. An appeal was made to a Circuit Court of Appeals. That Court took a course quite correct, although not, we think, very common; that is, it certified three questions, which it sent to the United States Supreme Court, requesting instruction. The present decisions form the reply. The Court, so to speak, boiled down the three questions into two. The first was whether the Naturalization Act (1906) was limited by a certain statute published later. The Court makes it perfectly plain that it is so limited, and it is not necessary here to give the technical reasons. The second question is, in effect, whether Ozawa, the appellant in the principal case, is eligible to naturali

zation under the Naturalization Act so limited. This the Supreme Court decided in the negative.

As the law stands, the naturalization of aliens is limited to "free white persons and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." The word "free" has now no significance, as there are no slave whites, and the Court

holds that the word "free" means non

slave. Therefore, as regards aliens other than Africans, the whole question is what the word "white" means.

The Supreme Court holds that the words "white person" are synonymous with the words "a person of the Caucasian race." This makes the test in any individual case racial. The Court cites many decisions in former cases to the effect that the words "import a racial and not an individual test" and it agrees with the view as fortified by reason and authority. It points out that a color test is quite impracticable.

Having reached this point, the natural expectation of the reader of the decision is that the Court will proceed to define what is meant by the words "a person of the Caucasian race." It does not, however, find it necessary to do that, because the cases before it were of men belonging to a race admitted to be not Caucasian. The Court does, however, go so far as to recognize that the words indicate "a zone of more or less debatable ground outside of which, upon the one hand, are those clearly eligible, and outside of which, upon the other hand, are those clearly ineligible for citizenship."

Our friends in Japan should bear in mind two things about this decision. One is that the highest American Court is here not establishing a new policy but simply interpreting and applying the existing law. The other is that neither the opinion of the Court nor the law which it interprets implies any idea of racial inferiority or superiority.

The law which the Court interprets is in substance nearly as old as the United States itself. Originally it confined naturalization to free white persons. Eighty years later the statute was changed to permit the naturalization of people of African descent. It is obvious, therefore, that the application of this law to the Japanese is simply carrying out a long-established National policy. It is obvious too that the very phraseology of the law forbids the thought that the naturalization of aliens is determined by a theory of Caucasian superiority, for the simple reason that Africans, who are not Caucasian, are admitted to citizenship.

The reason underlying the law as it has stood for generations on the statute books is to be found in the feeling that

the differences between certain races are so pronounced that it is better to keep those races separated. These differences exist between the white and black races; but these races cannot be kept separate in America by any naturalization law because of the existence here as native Americans of millions of blacks.

These

two races, however, can be kept separate from other races by laws which will discourage, if not wholly prevent, the permanent residence here of large numbers of other races, and among these laws are

tion of her own subjects. Moreover, Japan herself makes the naturalization of foreigners in Japan very difficult. The question is complicated by the problem of dual allegiance, on the principle established and observed that "once a Japanese is always a Japanese."

The United States and Japan can respect each other in no better way than by each respecting the other's rights to define its own citizenship.

and naturalization.

The question whether the American people will abandon their aversion to race mixture is for the present at least academic. There is no prospect of any change in their point of view on this subject. If anything appears to be certain, it is the determination of the American people to prevent the settlement here of masses of people of the yellow or the brown race. They have shown that determination by acts excluding the immigration of Asiatic peoples.

The question, however, still remains whether it is wise to exclude from citizenship those Asiatics who have been admitted. The children of these Asiatics born on American soil are American citizens by right of birth. Is it wise to have these American citizens brought up by parents who can never hope to be Americans themselves and who are forced to have, therefore, an alien loyalty? Is it wise, moreover, to have com munities composed of people whom the law treats as hopelessly foreign? It is one thing to undertake to keep out those whom the Nation feels it cannot assimilate in mass; it is quite another thing to undertake to render those whom the Nation admits unassimilable.

The law is now unmistakable in excluding Japanese from naturalization If there is to be any change, it will have to be made by Congress.

Fortunately, it does not appear that this question, so far as the Japanese are concerned, is likely in the near future to prove perplexing. If, as the Federal Government assumes, the "Gentlemen's Agreement" reinforced by the present Immigration Law is preventing the incoming of Japanese as permanent resi dents, the question of the citizenship of those who are here will in the course of a generation or so gradually settle itself. Children born in this country will automatically be citizens, and when the older generation passes the people here of Japanese origin will have no occasion to apply for citizenship papers. Japan as a nation can have no interest in the naturalization question, for she can hardly with reason urge the aliena

Ꭱ

OF LA FOLLETTE

OBERT MARION LA FOLLETTE is generally accepted as a leader among liberals. He would be so classed in any country. It is as a liberal that he has impressed his own State of Wisconsin. He more than any other individual is regarded as responsible for the body of legislation in which Wisconsin has been in advance of many, if not most, of the other States of the Union. It is as a liberal that he has impressed the Senate. Indeed, there he is regarded as among the most extreme of the liberals.

If liberalism is defined, as it has beer. in a book by one of the most selfconscious liberals, Harold Stearns, as "hatred of compulsion," Mr. La Follette can hardly be regarded as any more liberal than others who affect to believe in liberalism; for among the doctrines which La Follette advocates are few which do not involve the exercise of governmental compulsion, and particularly the compulsive power of taxation.

It is the authority to be exercised by Mr. La Follette in the Senate by virtue of his position on committees dealing with taxation and finance, as described by Mr. Barry in an article on another page of this issue, which gives the more conservative Senators concern.

If Mr. La Follette were simply a radical leader as pictured by Mr. Barry, conservatives as well as liberals might welcome his rise to new power. America needs spokesmen for radical opinion as well as conservative; perhaps it needs radical leaders more than conservative leaders because of the natural conservatism of the people and of their institutions. Mr. La Follette, however. has never commanded the confidence or secured the support of the great mass of progressive citizens.

The reason is not because these people of naturally liberal mind differ with Mr. La Follette in opinion; it is because they distrust his judgment and understanding.

For the distrust of Mr. La Follette which has persisted for many years he himself has given good cause. And in no time of his career did he furnish

more occasion for such distrust than in the period of National crisis preceding and during the war.

It is said on Mr. La Follette's behalf that his course was directed by his conscience. If Mr. La Follette followed his conscience when he denounced, not the men who blew up the Lusitania, but the people who were blown up; if he followed his conscience when he used his influence to weaken resistance to the aggressive designs of Germany; if he followed his conscience when he per

mitted appeals to an American electorate

to be made on the ground of the inter ests of alien states wihout denouncing such appeals; if he followed his conscience when he allied himself with those in Wisconsin who have made service to the country in time of war a political liability, then Mr. La Follette's conscience is an unsafe guide.

There were Tories in the time of the Revolution who were conscientious; but the American people did not pick from among them the political leaders for the newly born Republic. There were advocates of disunion and slavery in the North during the Civil War who were conscientious, but the Nation did not pick from among them the leaders to guide it toward union and freedom. Mr. La Follette has placed himself among those who in times of National crisis have failed the Nation in true leadership because they have failed in clear vision.

POETIC PULMOTORS

A

PROSPECTUS for a new poetry magazine drifted into The Outlook office the other day. The burden of its song is to be found in the following statement:

The poetry revival of recent years has done much towards stimulating an interest in the art. This interest, however, has hardly been general, for the revival, it is now evident, was chiefly among the poets and literati. As a result, a large number of lovers and patrons of the other arts who should have been reached (and who, it was supposed, had been reached) still remain untouched by the movement.

The analysis of the situation seems to be correct, although the remedy proposed, the establishing of another poetry magazine, hardly seems to us adequate. Poetry, by right of its origin and inheri tance, deserves to be as popular and as widely appreciated as music. Indeed, it might well find a larger audience, for the printed poem can reach many places where even the phonograph record is barred because of expense.

Perhaps modern poets themselves are to be blamed somewhat for the lack of general interest in their work. Tos

many of them have been writing for writers, oblivious of the fact that the greatest of literature is that which has in it large elements of popular as well as technical appeal.

Of course those poets who in our own day have reached the largest audience are not necessarily those who are doing the most enduring work. If popular ap

peal is made the sole test, then Robert W. Service would loom up out of all proportion to his true worth. To ask poets to write for readers rather than writers is not to ask for any lowering

W

of poetic standards. It is to ask them to search for those elements of beauty which are universal, to interpret the general through the particular rather than to treat the particular as an end in itself.

The failure of many modern poets to see life clearly and as a whole is perhaps both a cause and a result of the limita

tion of the present audience for poetry

Good poetry, both ancient and modern, will come into its own again when there is a more general application of the methods of teaching poetry described by

ITH the fall of the leaf in England has come the fall of the Coalition and the return to party government. Far be it from any one who is more interested in principles than in politics to take part in the conflict of personalities that is now raging over questions about who is responsible for this development, and whether it will be a good thing or a bad thing for the country or for the world in general. The main points so far disclosed are that the watchword of Mr. Bonar Law's party is likely to be "Stability, not sensation," a determination to reduce our foreign commitments in the East so far as they can be reduced with honor, and, possibly in connection with these pronouncements, the fact that the 5 per cent war loan, the barometer of our financial stability, stands steady at 1014, or thereabouts.

The cause of a political upheaval, like the origin of a war, is always difficult to trace. Each of them can be compared to an explosion in a magazine. It may be easy enough to determine who applied the spark, but if there had not been an accumulation of explosive material there would have been no explosion, and it is never easy to discover the origin of the accumulation. There is no doubt that for the past two years or more there has been a sense of disquietude in this country about the extent of our military commitments, especially in the East. Our foreign policy since the war has been terribly costly to the British taxpayer. Irak, Palestine, and the defense of the Straits have cost us many millions, and in no single case, in these or in other departures in our foreign policy, has any responsible Minister been able to pronounce that our naval and military experts have been consulted about the armaments entailed by the policy that was adopted. Appeals to these "experts" have always been deferred until emergencies, easily foreseen, have actually occurred. We can go further than that. Not only has the armament aspect of our foreign policy been ignored, but events have been viewed with grave anxiety by the General Staff

of the army. As soon as the late Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson was relieved of his responsibility as Chief of the Imperial General Staff he said as much in public. It may be asked, "Why, then, did he not resign?" The answer is to be found in the British Soldiers' Bible, the Field Service Regulations. We read there that the strength of forces to be maintained in peace or mobilized for war is a matter of policy, for which the Government is responsible. The War Office is responsible only for efficiently organizing, training, and equipping the forces voted by Parliament.

This sense of disquietude about our foreign policy was undoubtedly one of the explosives which had for some time been accumulating in the political magazine. Our expenditure in Irak was avowedly undertaken to help the new state to make a start, and to fulfill our pledge to the Arabs when, with their help, we destroyed the Turkish armies in 1918. Expenditure in Palestine was undertaken for similar reasons, and also in order to provide a national home for the Jews. Expenditure on the defense of the Straits, which has gone up by leaps and bounds, is due to our having made that business "our charge" under the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres, now a dead letter. All this heavy expenditure, be it noted, was undertaken on behalf of other nations; an altruistic and highly commendable policy, which had the support of the nation until it was realized that the heavy taxation and industrial distress in Britain was largely due to our pouring our money into the sands and seas of the Near and Middle East. Even so, we did not provide enough troops in our Constantinople army to support our proclaimed policy of keeping all armed forces outside the "neutral zones" surrounding the Dardanelles and Bosphorus. It was that which brought matters to a head.

The spark which ignited the magazine that exploded and blew up the "Coupon" Government was undoubtedly the official description of the Government's action that was issued to the press during a

fateful week-end in September. We do not even now know who was responsible for the blunder. That it was not made by any permanent official has been established. It must have been made by some Minister more apt to act upon impulse than to rely upon sound judgment. That is a personal matter, of politics rather than of principles. It was against the principles disclosed that the readers of the newspapers of that weekend stood aghast.

Only a few months after dispensing with the services of Indian troops in defending the Straits (a cause which they might not have had at heart) we had appealed to all the self-governing nations of the Commonwealth for aid. Australia and New Zealand responded; the remainder took time for thought, not understanding the issue. This appea! may or may not have been called for; on that there may be differences of opinion. We had also appealed to our late Balkan Allies-Rumania, Serbia (now expanded into Jugoslavia), and Greece (a belligerent in a war in which we had proclaimed our neutrality). It was that procedure, as reported in what claimed to be an official announcement of our policy, that caused the greatest anxiety in the public mind. What happened to that appeal we have never heard. It might, so it appeared, have led to a great war between Turkey (backed by France and perhaps Italy) and Greece, Jugoslavia, and Rumania, backed by ourselves, with the attitude of Bulgaria doubtful. It seemed to the public as if the foreign policy of the Coalition Government had resulted in breaking our Entente with France and Italy, had forced us to enlist the help of the Balkan States, and was landing us in a war in which we had no desire to embark.

Looking back upon the critical weeks through which we have passed, that seems to be the immediate cause of the fall of the Coalition, and with it, in the words of Lord Grey of Fallodon, the passing of something that was not wholesome out of our conduct of public affairs.

T

I-TSINGTAU

SINGTAU, the model Foreign Settlement or European city, which the Germans built at the entrance of Kiaochau Bay, Shantung Province, together with the surrounding area which constituted the former German leased territory, will be formally transferred to Chinese officials on Saturday, December 2. The last Japanese troops withdrew from the railway line May 4 and sailed from Tsingtau May 9, their final withdrawal delayed at the request of the Chinese, who in that brisk revolutionary season did not have ready the necessary police to guard the railway and its properties. For the same reason, the transfer of the leased territory was delayed by request after the ratifications of June 2. The treaty provides for the Chinese to take over the railway next March, but the Japanese are anxious to be relieved of it now.

The whole area of the leased territory, the actual ground space over which China resumes sovereignty (200 square miles), is roughly that of the District of Columbia or Greater New York, one-half of one per cent of Shantung Province, all that the Germans leased for ninetynine years from March, 1898, and all that the Japanese captured by force of arms in November, 1914. Tsingtau, the city itself, cannot be literally "returned" to China, any more than the Germanbuilt railway can be "returned," since neither existed until the Germans came and built them. The territory was leased for a definite time, but the town site and the strip of land for the railway up to Tsinanfu, one iron mine, and two coal mines up-country were bought outright from private owners and became German property pure and simple. In the Treaty of Versailles, "Germany renounces in favor of Japan" was the wording of Article 156, which relates to this leased territory, while in Articles 130, 131, 132, and 133 she "waived," "abrogated," and "ceded" other rights, interests, and leases in China to Great Britain, to France, and to China itself.

It was a sorry-looking site for a future city when Prince Henry of Prussia and Admiral von Diederichs held their for mal flag-raising on Harbor Hill in March, 1898. There was the shallow, muddy bay, fit for the anchorage of small gunboats only, until a harbor should be constructed, with a bold hill at the southern entrance and a range of barren hills running across the clay plain on the north shore to join the foothills and the Laoshan Range, which formed the east boundary of the leased territory. The surface of these hills and the land has been washing into and silting up the landlocked bay for all the

centuries that the inhabitants have been lopping off the branches and grubbing up the roots of all green and growing things that were not food or forage. The nearly circular bay, about fourteen miles across, shrinks to half that size at each low tide. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Arab dhows and Cantonese junks came to this bay to trade, and Kiaochau, "the Glue City," had great renown, as also the near-by "Black-Ink City." Kiaochau is now ancient, crumbling, and literally decaying, as its scores of odors loudly proclaim, and is no longer a seaport. It lies eight miles inland from its junk port of Taputau which is a seaport by the grace of the moon and the tides only. At all other times only slender trickles of sewage meander through the four miles of ooze that the twelve-foot drop of the tide leaves exposed. One reaches Kiacchau City by train, forty-two miles from Tsingtau, although it is only twenty miles in air line. Once within the gates, one goes back ten centuries. During those extraordinary discussions in the Senate over the Versailles Treaty Kiaochau and Tsingtau were hopelessly mixed up, as none of the orators evidently had looked at a map. One of the eloquent raved about "Kiaochau and Tsingtau, those two great ports;" a Versailles delegate spoke of "Kiaochau (the port of Tsingtau);" and there were bulls and breaks of this order past counting. They then took to Shantung. an easier word to pronounce, and it was "Shantung" and "all Shantung" every time they spoke, until they convinced

themselves that the Japanese were in occupation of and administering the whole province of Shantung, save for the period that "Shantung Peninsula" had vogue, and the Senate solemnly and unanimously voted their sorrow that "Articles 156 and 157 of the treaty were disregardful of the true rights and deepseated desires of more than thirty-six millions of Chinese inhabiting the Peninsula!" all innocent of the fact that there were, not that many millions in the whole province, and that the greater part of the Shantung Peninsula was comprised in the great British leasehold of Weihaiwei and its special zone, and that its people had not been affected in any way by the treaty. There was such a welter of bad geography that it was timely for Clark University to establish a special school of geography at once, declaring us an illiterate people geographically-eighth-grade pupils the whole lot of us.

There stood only a temple to the Goddess of the Sea, a mud fort, a magistrate's house, and the few wretched shelters of some fishermen when the Germans came. The "China Sea Directory" for 1894, a precise and unemotional work, drew a dismal picture of the landscape: "The general appearance of the land about the bay is barren in the extreme; the dry parched soil (yellowish clay interspersed with occasional blocks of granite) has a most uninviting appearance." "The villages were all far back towards the hills, and the fishermen retreated there when the Germans had bought their seashor