expect is that the American people, as the result of his visit, will have a finer and more sympathetic appreciation of French civilization, the French intellect, the French temperament, and French virility. The picture which Clemenceau presents in his own personal bearing, of a combination of courage, frankness, faith, persistence, and indomitable vigor, is truly a splendid one. In this respect he is not only doing a service to France, but a service to the moral qualities of the human race.

We have just seen a letter from a young New York matron, who heard Clemenceau two weeks ago give his notable extemporaneous speech at the Metropolitan Opera House. It so confirms our own judgment of the real mission of Clemenceau that we desire to pass it along to our readers:

Last night I heard the message that Clemenceau came over to America to give to us, and it was a stirring and impressive occasion, even though one did not agree with all of his point of view. The Metropolitan was filled with a brilliant audience which waited in eager expectancy for the "Tiger" to appear. Suddenly he came briskly across the stage, and the whole audience rose to greet him with hearty enthusiasm. From the dress circle we wondered whether that rather small, frail man could make himself heard in the great opera house, but when he rose to speak our doubts vanished as the strength of his voice filled the house. He spoke with reat simplicity, and yet with real

dramatic power, and through it all was the charm and delightful humor that no one knows how to use better than a Frenchman. As he stood there, alone, speaking for France, Clemenceau seemed a lovable and yet pathetic figure, although his vigor and the fire of his eloquence filled us with admiration. Perhaps the most dramatic moment was when he suddenly turned toward a box above the stage, and with outstretched arm appealed to Paderewski as a witness to what he was saying about the making of history at the time of the armistice. With those two world figures who had taken so large a part in the history of the war a picture of that time seemed to be brought vividly before our eyes. The audience was most responsive to Clemenceau's message, even when he scored America frankly as a "quitter," and the crowd as a whole seemed to agree with him and to receive his points with enthusiasm. His courage and sincerity were inspiring, and when he ended, after an hour and thirty-five minutes in which his vigor never flagged, we felt that we had heard a truly great man.

A civilization which can produce such a character and personality is truly a great civilization. The day of armed political alliances seems to have passed. It certainly has so far as the United States is concerned. What must be hoped and worked for is an effective combination of those in every country who believe, as Clemenceau believes, in a system of international justice that shall give every man an opportunity to make the best of himself mentally,

words, some method must be found for mobilizing the moral forces of the world.

L

LYNCHING A
NATIONAL EVIL

YNCHING is a stain on the Nation.

Americans denounce Turkey for the massacre of Armenians. Americans have counted it a reproach against Russia and against Poland that those two countries in the past have tolerated Jewish pogroms. In holding Turkey and Poland and Russia guilty Americans have not made any allowance for the fact that there are undoubtedly Turks and Poles and Russians who have deplored such wholesale crimes. The rea son why we in America have held these nations responsible for such forms of murder is that in each case Governmental authority has either been exercised to promote the crime or has deliberately refrained from suppressing it.

When, on the other hand, critics of America have charged this Nation with the guilt of lynching, Americans have resented the accusation. It is not pleasant for a free and liberty-loving people to be classed with those whom they have denounced. In a measure the resentment on the part of Americans at the attempt of foreign critics to hold the whole Nation guilty of lynching is justifled. There has never been any evidence that the Government of the United States has been a direct accomplice in any lynching as the Czar's Government was an accomplice in pogroms or the Turkish Government has been an accomplice in massacres. Nevertheless the American people are not free from blame for the evil of lynching; for lynching is not merely a local evil. So long as the Government of the United States fails to exercise all the power at its command to prevent such lawlessness, so long will other peoples have the moral right to hold the whole Nation in some measure responsible for every mob that attempts to work its vengeance upon its victim.

If the National Government were so feeble that it could not do anything to eradicate the evils of lynching, there might be some ground for asserting that all that Americans could do to remove the stain of lynching from the Nation would be to explain to foreigners that the Nation was powerless to do anything of itself. The Nation, however, is not powerless. Again and again it has been established that there is Federal police power. That power, it is true, cannot be exercised except to enforce authority granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government. The Constitution,

however, has granted the Federal Government authority to deal with this very thing. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and that "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

It is obvious that when an officer of a State fails to employ the resources at his command to protect a person under his care from a lynching mob, the State, through its agent, is denying to that person the equal protection of the laws.

Congress, representing the people of the whole Nation, has therefore the right to enact legislation to hold the States severally responsible for protect ing people against lynching.

It is for the purpose of exercising this right of Congress that the Dyer AntiLynching Bill was introduced into Congress. It has passed the House of Representatives and is now before the Senate. It provides that any State or municipal officer who neglects or refuses to make all reasonable efforts to prevent the lynching of a person in his charge is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment not exceeding five years or by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by both fine and imprisonment; that any such officer who conspires with the mob shall be guilty of felony, punishable by imprisonment for not less than five years or even for life; that the trial of the accused in these cases shall be by Federal court; that any county in which a lynching occurs shall be subject to a forfeit of ten thousand dollars to be used for the benefit of the victim's family or other dependents, or otherwise for the use of the United States; and that if the victim is taken from one county to another both the county in which he was seized and the county in which he was put to death shall be liable to pay the forfeiture.

There is strong legal authority for holding that such a law would be Constitutional. The American Bar Association in its meeting in San Francisco last August resolved that "further legislation should be enacted by the Congress to punish and prevent lynching and mob violence." Whether all the provisions of the Dyer Bill would be upheld by the Supreme Court no one can be certain; but it is by no means certain that they would not be upheld.

In spite of what Mr. Miller says in his article on another page, this bill is not aimed at any section or at the defense of any race. It is aimed at an evil that has disgraced practically every section of the Nation and that has brought disrepute upon the Nation without respect

to section. Mr. Miller says the States can and should stop lynching, and that if they do not the Nation should and must do it. We believe that in this Mr. Miller speaks, not only for the South, but for the whole country. It is not enough for those who object to the Dyer Bill to point out its defects; they must prove that there is a better, a more effectual way to stop this evil. So far no better way has been found.

THE SPIRIT OF OBSTRUCTION

W

RECKING houses is a necessary business, but it is subordinate to house building. Opposition to what is wrong or stupid is often needed, but not so often as promoting what is intelligent and right. We suppose that the men who engage in the business of pulling down old buildings derive much satisfaction from the rather dramatic display of power. Here, for instance, is a massive structure that is in the way of some new improvement. The man who undertakes to pull that building down must find some delight in directing the force that is overthrowing those solid walls of brick and stone. The very speed with which destruction takes place is a stimulant. Similarly, there is some pleasure undoubtedly to be derived in setting one's self against a powerful political or social movement and impeding it or diverting it from its natural course. It is much easier and much more dramatic to withstand than to plod along, to pull down than to build up.

In the last four years it has seemed as if the country and its political representatives had formed the habit of obstruction. We have been very wise perhaps in deciding what should not be done. There have been a score of intelligent discussions of the faults of the Treaty of Versailles to one intelligent suggestion as to how it could have been bettered. There have been scores of critical comments upon the shortcomings of Europe to one intelligent and practical suggestion as to what Europe can do to make the shortcomings up.

This obstructionist spirit has seemed to become almost habitual with the American people. The election in November was not an election for; it was an election against. Most of the talk as to what the new Congress will be consists in estimating the power of this group or that to impede some proposed legislation. Perhaps we may even come to spelling bloc b-l-o-c-k.

Here, for example, is the bill for aid to the American Merchant Marine. No one doubts that there is a task before the country that ought to be done. The

Nation needs carriers for its manufactured goods, just as a department store needs delivery cars. If we are going to sell our goods in the markets of the world, we cannot depend upon hiring messenger boys from other countries if we are going to sell on even terms. We must provide our cwn messenger service, or else give up competing on equal terms with other manufacturing nations, such as Japan and England, and even, in time, renascent Germany. At the same time we have an enormous fleet of vessels lying idle. For the Government to operate these vessels itself has proved impracticable. There is a definite proposal now before the country that the Government should get out of the business of operating ships and turn it over to private owners on an understanding that in return for certain benefits they will put their vessels to certain public service. All the opposition has so far consisted in denouncing that bill. Virtually none of it-certainly none that has made any public impression-has consisted in any intelligent alternative proposal. The people who are against what they call a ship subsidy do not seem to be united for anything.

Here, for another example, comes our good friend Georges Clemenceau to tell us what France thinks. Of course he is greeted with a warm and affectionate demonstration. Public discussion, however, of his interpretation of the needs of France consists mainly in informing M. Clemenceau of the view of American Senators and others concerning the mistakes France has made, or concerning what the United States will not do. Within the memory of people scarcely beyond middle age France has been invaded twice. It is easy to tell France what she should not do about it and what we will not do about it; but who among all American critics are giving France any sensible and plausible suggestion as to what she or we can and should do?

And here, to cite the most familiar and persistent example, we have prohibition. Nothing is easier than to point out certain defects in the law and in its enforcement. Foreign visitors seem to think that Americans are engaged in doing nothing else. When these critics of prohibition are asked, "Do you want the return of the saloon, the bar-room, the grog-shop?" they are very nearly unanimous in protesting, "Of course not." They do not like prohibition. What, then, will they have in its stead? If there has been any consistent reply from any of the large body of these numerous critics, we have yet to hear it. The dispensary? Ask South Carolina. Beers and light wines? What kind of beer? How light wine? Who will sell them”

Should they be taxed? How are you going to have any trade in liquor without reviving the liquor trade? It is much easier to tear down the Volstead

Act and the Eighteenth Amendment than it is to design and erect any decent, durable structure in their place.

Apparently every now and then the

American people need to have somebody ask them, even if it has to be a Tweed: "What are you going to do about it?" with the emphasis on the "do."

T

HE

Federal Child Labor Law, lately declared unconstitutional, was passed to meet an alleged delinquency of the South in the protection of its children. It was passed by the votes of other sections over the protest of the South, and whatever rejoicing greeted the Supreme Court's decision came from the South.

The proposed Federal law against lynching is also-when one frankly faces the facts-aimed at the South, and at the lynching of Negroes in the South in particular. While it is opposed by representative citizens of all sections, the most vigorous and concerted opposition comes from the South. The fight against its enactment is largely a fight of Southern sentiment against the sentiment of other sections. Southern opposition has been intensified and strengthened by the decision against the Child Labor Law.

Because Southern votes in Congress and Southern newspaper utterances were strongly against the one measure when it was being debated and are now strongly against the other, it should not be inferred, therefore, that Southern sentiment is unanimous in either case. In the 1921 report of the Tennessee Bureau of Workshop and Factory Inspection I find this sentence, "The Federal Child Labor Tax Law has helped materially in the enforcement of the Child Labor Law." Most Southern people, I am persuaded, while naturally feeling that child labor should be regulated by the States rather than by the Federal Government, recognized that some States were not doing their duty, and would have been quite content to see the Federal law remain in force.

So an increasing number of Southerners are coming to look with tolerance on the idea of a Federal law against lynching. This does not mean that there is any acceptance of the provisions of the Dyer Bill. A few Southern Congressmen voted for that measure, but the ablest Southern Republicans opposed it. I have yet to hear any Southerner in private conversation approve its provis ions. So general is this condemnation, so strongly voiced has it been from all sections of the country, so manifestly unfair are some of the provisions of the bill, that one does not have to venture far into the realms of prophecy to say that it is not going to become a law hout being materially modified. Nor

does one have to assume much legal lore to doubt its constitutionality. Disregarding this particular bill, then-as one well may-there remain some important questions it has raised for the South to consider-the question of whether the prevention of lynchings should be left entirely to the States, even when they fail to take adequate steps of prevention, for one thing; for another, the question of whether a Federal law, even though undesirable, may not become necessary; the question of whether the public sentiment of the

South will be against a Federal law for all time and under all circumstances.

Having definite views of my own on the first two questions, I have lately been trying to find out just what representative Southerners who have studied the subject of lynchings think of the ultimate possibility and desirability of a Federal anti-lynching law.

Three men of Tennessee who have given much thought to racial relationships and have done much to create a sentiment against mob violence are Dr. Edward Mims of Vanderbilt University, former Governor A. H. Roberts, and Mr. Bolton Smith. These men are agreed that Federal action should come only as a last resort—that is, only when the States have made it clear that they will not take adequate measures to prevent lynchings and to punish the members of lynching mobs. Yet Dr. Mims says, "If local and State government cannot stop lynching, then the Nation must and will." Or, as Mr. Smith puts it, "If we

do not mend our ways very decidedly, Federal legislation will be had."

These men, because of their interest in the welfare of the colored race, might be expected to take the view that the protection of the individual in his rights as a citizen and the promotion of racial harmony could become of more importance than the preservation to the States of their right to the exclusive use of the police power. Yet I found a Southerner of the truest type, Dr. T. N. Ivey, editor of the official organ of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, taking practically the same view. "The States should suppress lynchings and punish lynchers," Dr. Ivey said in effect. "If they will not, public sentiment will force the Nation to take a hand, and it should. Whether the States have already sinned away their day of grace I do not know."

A former professor in the University of Tennessee, long in the South, but of Northern birth and Republican ancestry, was firmly of the opinion that the Nation had both the right and the reason to act if lynching became a National problem. Yet this man put more stress than any educated Southerner I have talked to in a long time on the naturalness of the feeling that leads to lynchings and the incentive to the use of force-even illegal force-that exists wherever there is a large population that understands and respects no law but the law of force.

Both contrasting with and complementing these views are those of a thoughtful Negro leader, Professor Isaac Fisher, of Fisk University. He favors a Federal law and pleads with Southern lawmakers to welcome, not oppose, "Federal assistance-not interference"in the stamping out of a great evil. Only an awakened public opinion can stop lynchings, he says; a Federal law will be but the beginning of the work necessary to be done. "Any one who imagines that habits of thought can be changed by legislative enactments needs to turn back and read again the history of civilization." Federal law is needed, not because it will stop lynching all at once, but because it will strengthen public sentiment against it, make the task of State and local officials in protecting the weak and ignorant easier, and give hope and courage to the Negro race.

This call for immediate Federal action voices the feeling of Negroes generally. The Negro mind-so far as one outside

the race can judge-is filled with the horror of lynchings. The race fears the lynching mob and resents with intense bitterness the thought and feeling that tolerate mobs and their unholy deeds. Without Professor Fisher's understanding of the limited results that Federal legislation can achieve, the Negroes generally see in it their only hope and long for it with an intensity not generally appreciated.

The Negro view can be taken for granted. That the views of the men I have been quoting are the views of the majority of Southern whites I very much doubt. I am inclined to think that the majority view was presented by the business man who said that he was opposed to both lynchings and a Federal law against lynching. "I do not believe the Federal Government ought to interfere with matters that can be handled locally. I believe its interference would provoke resentment in the South and do more harm than good. No community is going to take kindly to the exercise by an outside authority of powers it has been itself exercising. The Governors of the States are the men who can do most to prevent lynchings. A State police force in every State would be a great help. Only the development of a general feeling against lynching can finally end it. This feeling is steadily being developed. A Federal law would check rather than aid its development."

A young man with an interest in things political expressed similar opinions: "The Federal Government is interfering in too many things now. What is needed is not more laws, but better enforcement of the law we have. Even if things go on as they have been going, I am opposed to a Federal law. It will be better for a few lynchers to go unpunished than for the National Government further to weaken the power of the States."

This is the view taken by most Southern politicians and newspapers, the view probably yet held by the majority of our people. I think there is no doubt, however, that the majority holding this view is all the time becoming smaller. The conviction that lynchings must be stopped-by the Nation if the States cannot or will not do it steadily deepens. The people of the South are coming to feel a sense of shame for their long endurance of this crime against democracy and humanity, and most Southern States are now making an honest effort to put an end to it. If the three or four States that yet seem indifferent remain so, they will find themselves before long without the support or the sympathy of the States that are trying to erase the blot that now clings to the whole South.

Thoughtful Southerners are coming, too, I think, to realize that it is finally by public sentiment rather than by law that lynchings will be stopped. Much can be done, beyond doubt, by the speedier trial of persons accused of crime, but this could be carried too far in individual cases. Much can be done by prompt, energetic action that will make evident the purpose of public officials to enforce the law against mobs and mob members. Too much can scarcely be done along this line. In some States, at least, public sentiment is even now with the official who is not afraid to put down mob violence with a strong hand if necessary, and officials are showing a determination along this line they did not so fully display a few years ago.

"Any Governor can enforce the law," said Governor Taylor, of Tennessee. "It is all nonsense for a man in office to say that he cannot. If he is willing to act and not afraid, he can do it, and publie sentiment will back him up in it." Governor Taylor has shown commendable

energy in law enforcement and has unquestionably had the backing of the public. In some instances and in some sections an official might not have this public support, and with public sentiment against him the most vigilant and active of officials might not be able in extreme cases to prevent a lynching. It is seldom, however, if the proper effort were made, that the leaders of a mob could not be apprehended and put to trial.

Personally, I believe that lynching must be stopped-in the South and elsewhere. The States can and should stop it. If they do not, the Nation should and must do it. National legislation can be prevented, and should be prevented, only by the earnest effort of the States to protect their citizenship. If National legislation becomes necessary, and is wisely conceived and fairly adminis tered, it will commend itself to the thoughtful Southerner, just as the Federal Child Labor Law, despite his objections to its passage, was coming to commend itself.

Right now what is most needed is not more laws, either State or Federal, but a quickened sense of public duty and individual responsibility in the matter. The people who would end the crime of lynching can do most to accomplish their desire by bringing home to the public mind the horror, the futility, and the danger to our whole fabric of government of such lawlessness. Similarly, the men who are concerned to preserve to the States their ancient rights can do most to accomplish that end by bringing to the citizens and the officials of the States in which lynchings most frequently occur a realization of the fact that civilization will not much longer tolerate the repeated and unpunished murder of men-black or white, guilty or innocent-by excited and passionate mobs.

T

ENGLISH

HERE is an old tradition of some

two years' standing that any Eng lishman who visits America (and, he who reads might almost suspect, many who do not) must necessarily write his impressions of how prohibition does not work and how American universities do, and generally, from a per haps three weeks' experience, tell Americans how they ought to manage their country. As I write Professor Stephen Leacock's "Discovery of England" lies before me. I have, I hope, learned its lesson. The tradition will by me be more honored in the breach than in the observance. My Discovery of America is that it is a land whose hospitality is almost staggering. My impression of my first visit to America is that it will

BY M. C. HOLLIS

SECRETARY OF THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY

not be my last. Beyond that I will not commit myself. I am an original Eng lishman, who believes that the problems of America, educational or otherwise, must be solved by Americans.

My task is less ambitious, and perhaps less impertinent. I have had the good fortune to be a member of a debating team from Oxford University which has been touring a few of the Eastern American universities, and I have been asked to write of the differences between Oxford and these universities. How far the universities which. I have visited are typical of American universities, and how far, therefore, my remarks are capable of generalization, I simply do not know. I should imagine that there is no such thing as an American uni

versity and that Harvard is a great deal more like Oxford than it is like one of the big State universities of the Middle West. I can write only of what I have seen, and I have seen these seven universities-Bates College in Maine, Swarthmore, Columbia, Yale, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania.

And of the other term of my comparisons and contrasts. I am comparing, not with "the English university"--which is a phrase that means nothing at all-but with Oxford. And whatever the English university would be like, it would certainly not be like Oxford and Cambridge.

Between Oxford and the Eastern universities the first difference by which every one must be struck is the funda