Cornell; Cornell, which had the same test after a triumphal progress through a comparatively easy schedule; Notre Dame, victorious save for one tie already mentioned; and the University of California, which has rolled up 410 points against 34 by its opponents.

Now, from the mass of conflicting statistics and verbal reports, the sport writers will proceed to construct championship teams of players, some of whom they have never seen in action, and to award supreme honors or supreme ignominy to colleges which care little for either so long as they beat their bestbeloved enemies. It has been a good season except for football dopesters, but we have no hope that this fact will prevent them from prophecies and ex post facto explanations when October comes again.

PAINTING WITH SUNLIGHT

TH

HE progress of American photography finds its best representation in the annual volumes published by the society of Pictorial Photographers of America. This society has now for three years published a volume containing the best work of its members and other photographers. We print two representative pictures from this book on pages 602 and 603 of this issue.

The latest volume of the series is the best which has been published and shows a much more general understanding of the essentials of pattern and form than the two previous collections. Fuzziness is not the only quality which nowadays distinguishes the artistic photographer from his more commercialminded brother of the news agency. Nor is the artistic photographer satisfied any longer with the conventional and easy composition of landscape framed by the trunk and the overhanging branch of a tree. The best of the modern photographers are boldly attempting to solve the same problems of shadow, light, and balance which have excited the interest and attention of modern painters.

RAMSAY MACDONALD, ENGLISH LABOR

LEADER

taken up by Dr. Daniel F. Comstock, of the Department of Physics and Optics in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In association with Dr. Herbert Kalmus, an electrochemist of distinction, Dr. Comstock has perfected a process, based upon the chromatic optics of color photography, by which the colors of nature are reproduced in the film and may be thrown on the screen by any projecting lantern. The inventors call their process "Technicolor," and a technicolor film play is now running at the Rialto Theater in New York and attracting the attention of artists as well as of the general public.

The producers have chosen a Chinese setting and characters for this play, perhaps because of the variety of colors which Chinese fabrics and embroideries afford. They have found a young Chinese lady to take the part of the heroine or tragedienne of the play, a Miss Wong, about whom we should like to know more than is given in the scanty information of the programme. She is both charming and gifted-a genuine artist.

In this respect the play, called "The Toll of the Sea" and based on John Luther Long's "Madame Butterfly," has an international appeal. But its chief interest lies in its revelation of what may be done to make the moving picture a thing of beauty by the reproduction of the natural colors of flowers, landscapes, fabrics, and the human face. Those who can should see this picture, not only because of its human and æsthetic interest, but because it is likely to prove to be a historical episode in the development of what is now a great industry and may become a great art.

IRELAND AND ENGLAND

TH

HE execution of Erskine Childers occurred just as the British Parlia ment took up for action and probable approval the Irish Free State Constitution. To such approval the Conservative majority and Prime Minister are positively committed.

What effect will the execution have on the fortunes of the Free State? There are many who think that it may fan the flame of hostility, increase the activity of the irregular forces of the De Valera faction, and possibly make it necessary for the Free State to call in British aid to quell the so-called Republican army. On the other hand, those who maintain that the De Valera forces are little better than brigands, with no mandate from. the Irish people, while the Free State Government and its army have been authorized by a majority of Irish voters to act for them, declare that the execution was just, and also expedient, and that the time has come when the Free State proclamation that insurgent killings would be punished as murders, and not as acts of war, should be enforced and respected.

Erskine Childers was an Englishman and a Protestant; it is said that his wife was an American and an ardent advocate of the Irish Republic. Childers served with credit in the Great War; he was converted to the Sinn Fein cause; he was an admirer and colleague of Grif fith and Collins, but sided against them when the division came between those Sinn Feiners who accepted a Dominion form of government and those who chose to fight to the bitter end for complete independence.

Childers was tried on the charge of carrying arms without permission, an offense now legally punishable with death. It is admitted by every one that he has been a leading executive in the plans of the insurgents, and he is often called "the brains of the movement." It was not shown, so far as the reports state, that he ordered the killing of Michael Collins or other specific acts of lawless violence. If it had been SO proved, there would be less feeling that the death penalty was excessive and that a better course might have been banishment or imprisonment. The fact that English papers denounced Childers as renegade may have influenced the decision, and doubtless there was a feeling in the Free State that Michael Collins's

assassination should be avenged. One writer describes Childers as an Englishman by birth, an Irishman by convic tion, and a fanatic irreconcilable and relentless.

Apart from the emphasis laid on the

Irish question, and the fact that the Lloyd George Liberals voted to a man with the Conservatives in the first division of the house, the opening of the British Parliament was chiefly marked by the exuberance and unparliamentary manners of the members of the greatly enlarged Labor Party. The unemployment question came promptly to the front. One new member, Mr. Newbold, pointed out that he was the first elected member of the Communist Internationale who had stood at the foot of the throne, and added that it would not be the last by a long chalk. Another remarked:

In the House of Lords to-day I witnessed a scene that made my blood boil. I saw all the pomp and splendor of this country, and I had just come fresh from the law courts of Glasgow, where I have been trying to prevent workingmen, women, and children from being ejected from their homes, not because they had committed a crime, but because there is no work for them.

The present system is responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of people, and I am sent here on the distinct understanding that I do all in my power to overturn this system.

The new leader of the Labor Party and leader also of the Opposition is Ramsay Macdonald, a brilliant speaker, a bitter opponent of the war, but also now an avowed opponent of Communism. He is a theoretical and intellectual Socialist; his chief aide is the economist, Mr. Sidney Webb. Mr. Macdonald at the outset declared his intention to carry on political action through constitutional methods.

NEAR EAST QUESTIONS AT LAUSANNE

I

N the early sessions of the Lausanne Conference the two most notable sensations have centered round the utterances of two nations not formally represented at the Conference, the United States and Russia.

If there were any belief that the American "observers" at the Conference were to confine themselves to listening, it was dissipated when Mr. Richard Washburn Child, our Ambassador to Italy and the head of our delegation at Lausanne, made a statement as to American rights in the Near East. He made it clear that the United States has strong views for an open door to all nations in commercial matters, for the continuance of exterritorial rights in Turkey, against any bargaining for special economic privilege as between nations formally represented at the Conference to the exclusion of American interests, and against secret treaties. * this is really but a repetition of Secretary Hughes said in his reply

CHRISTOPHER MORLEY author of "Shandygaff," "Parnassus on Wheels," and "Songs for a Little House," and of a thousand delightful whimsicalities in his daily column in the New York "Evening Post," once wrote of The Outlook: "From time to time I have offered one-act plays to various magazine editors; usually they are greatly shocked and reply that a one-act play is quite outside their province. I have a ridiculous feeling that The Outlook would publish even a oneact play if it thought it amusing or for any reason at all worth ink."

Whether or not Mr. Morley had any ulterior motive in thus complimenting the broad-mindedness of The Outlook we do not know. We only know that shortly after the publication of the letter he sent us a one-act play entitled "Bedroom Suite" and that this play is soon to appear in The Outlook. With the finesse of this editorial approach in mind we are thinking of recommending Mr. Morley's name to the President when the next vacancy occurs in the diplomatic corps.

to the invitation for American representation at Lausanne.

has

This American declaration brought out important comments from interested nations. Thus Great Britain has positively indicated its approval of these American ideas. Its chief representative at Lausanne, Lord Curzon, has spoken definitely in approval of the principle of the open door and against any unfair compact as regards the valuable oil interests in Mosul. On the other hand, Ismet Pasha, the Turkish delegate, has been stirred by Mr. Child's utterance to make extreme claims as to the future of Turkey. He asserts that Turkey under the Nationalist Government must be treated as entirely independent and self-governing.

Russia, through recognized representatives, backs this Turkish position, and is especially peremptory in its demand that foreign navies should enter the Dardanelles and the waters to the east only as all naval vessels are admitted to the waters controlled by another government. Soviet Russia also maintains with Turkey that mandates over former Turkish territory are null and void and that Turkey itself should control the Mosul area. In fact, Russia seems now set upon supporting Turkey's most extreme attitude, including the abolition

of the capitulations and, as Mr. Rakovsky, the principal Russian representative in Lausanne, puts it, "the liberty of the Straits from foreign domination."

All this discussion has brought out the fact that there are important American interests in Turkey about which we have a right to be heard. For instance, Dr. Gates, for many years the President of Robert College, in Constantinople, which is the largest educational institution in the Near East, declares that the Kemalist Turks for the future will not tolerate any minority population, and that the Christian minorities have already practically been driven out, so that the twenty-five thousand pupils who were in American-managed schools have disappeared and the schools are closed. Naturally, Dr. Gates, Dr. J. L. Barton, of the American Board, who is also in Lausanne, and others interested in American institutions think that those institutions, as well as the Christian minorities and the exterritorial rights, should be protected in so far as they are American by separate treaty with the United States.

Secretary Hughes and Ambassador Child between them have certainly cleared away the foggy state of mind which has seemed to prevail among a good many Americans and has led them to believe that because we could not take part in the Sèvres Treaty, as we had not been at war with Turkey, and because we did not wish to take part in any territorial divisions or scrambling for advantages, therefore we had no rights at all in the Near East. As a matter of course we have precisely the same rights we have always had, and we may properly use all diplomatic means to protect those rights.

T

CLEMENCEAU

HE visit of Georges Clemenceau to this country is an international event of the first importance. It may have no direct political effect; at this writing the indications are that it will not. But it is sure to have a social, educational, and moral effect, and sooner or later social, intellectual, and moral forces find expression in political policies.

Mr. Clemenceau must not expect that the remarkable tokens of popular admiration and affection which he has re ceived are any indication that Congress or the Administration will modify their attitude on German reparations, the cancellation of foreign war debts, or the protection of France by alliances or agreements. Or that it will disarm American criticism of the French Government for its pro-Turk and antiArmenian policy. What he may rightly

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 eat 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,

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 reason 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 protecting 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 pubic 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 ther