« AnteriorContinuar »
freshman he had literally forced himself into the 'varsity boat by strength and persistence-a member of one of the crews he later trained, Mr. R. D. Paine, tells in a book of reminiscence a queer story of the efforts of the upper-class crew members to bluff off the freshman farm boy, and of his success through sheer might of muscle and readiness to fight at the drop of a hat. That year (1872) Yale, on the Connecticut River, came in last of a long string of boats with Amherst Agricultural College at their head. Cook, elected captain after that defeat, knew that the fault was largely in the stroke, for a stronger set: of men than that crew is rarely seen..
Inquiry led Cook to believe that Oxford was the best place to study rowing scientifically. He quietly said, "I am going to England," got President Porter's permission to drop back a class (from 1875 to 1876), and borrowed moderate funds (some $300, it is said) from those who had faith in his idea-and some undergraduates had faith enough to pawn their overcoats to help "quixotic Cook," as others called him.
The next year Yale led in the race, the "English stroke" was acclaimed, and the fast "donkey-engine" short stroke that took the heart out of a heavy man, whereas the long sweeping stroke utilized his strength to the utmost, became a thing of the past. There have been, and are, varying theories about what the "English stroke" originally was and as to how far it furnished the model for present-day rowing science. Cook always said that he believed in a combination of English and American rowing ideas. At all events, as interpreted by Bob Cook, the new stroke was a surprising advance on former practice, and it is historically true that he started a new era of college rowing. The crews he coached did not always win, but his work as coach for twenty years or so was a big asset to his college. He was, we believe, the first amateur trainer and coach of a college crew.
Bob Cook's recent death has revived many stories of his early days. One is that when he got to Oxford he at first was accorded scant attention. However, the story goes, some one did invite him to a crew supper one evening, and while there he was asked if he could wrestle. "He replied that he could-a little and forthwith he threw every oarsman in the room. After that Oxford was his, and all its rowing secrets were revealed to him." As a matter of fact, much of his knowledge was gained from a long course of instruction from Saltus, the Oxford boatman and famous builder of shells.
Cook certainly will be remembered as a good oarsman, good coach, and good
TRYING FOR A COMPROMISE AT LAUSANNE
ECENT sessions of the Lausanne Conference have developed a more reasonable attitude than prevailed at first. The Turks have shown no disposition to insist on the extreme demands made nominally in their behalf, but really for selfish national motives, by the Russians. A great point was gained when it was essentially agreed by all the Powers except Russia that the Dardanelles Straits should be unfortified by Turkey and open to warships for passage under conditions and agreements to be reached after discussion. An international commission may supervise the operation of such a plan. It is obvious that the whole case rests upon these conditions yet to be agreed upon. Russia, for instance, as we write, is reported to say that she would never sign an agreement which should allow each nation as many warships east of the Dardanelles as are possessed by the greatest maritime Power of the Black Sea-that is, Russia. So, too, if Turkey, as is proposed, is at liberty to fortify the coast everywhere except on the Straits themselves, and to do this without reference to the extent of the fortification, it might be that the theoretical opening of the Straits would be a farce in case of war.
The inclination to compromise shown by the Turks followed, and very possibly was influenced by, the representations of the head of the American group of observers, Ambassador Child. His statement was not as clear as it might have been, but it opposed fortification of the Straits and was willing to admit of restriction as to the use of the Straits by war-vessels. It is quite probable that an agreement will be made that will limit the size and number of war-vessels in. such a way as to satisfy Russia's angry opposition to anything comparable to British control of the Black Sea, and at the same time to make it possible for the navies of the Great Powers to prevent serious trouble in the Near East.
The question of deportation of nonTurkish people in Asia Minor and Constantinople and that of the continuance or non-continuance of the extraterritorial privileges heretofore accorded to non-Turkish peoples have both been put aside during the important discussion on the Straits. Turkey probably will be open to reason on these subjects, although she has interjected an ill-timed intimation that she will not allow Christians or Jews to marry or be divorced in Turkey, or to own land there-all of which sounds as if she meant that she would have no courts in Turkey except her own, which are notoriously unfair to all outside interests or rights.
An interesting letter from Lausanne,
"What Japan Is Leaving," in the issue for November 29), the date for Japan's evacuation of Tsingtau in the Chinese Province of Shantung was set for December 2. But December 2 came and went, and the Japanese remained. much suspicion has been aroused by the Japanese occupation of that former German leasehold in China that this apparent breach of a pledge might naturally have aroused an outcry if the explanation had not been at once forthcoming. This was, in brief, that the Chinese had requested the Japanese to postpone their departure.
The reason for this was the danger threatened by Chinese bandits. In anticipation of the removal of the Japanese authorities, these bandits appeared with the prospect of easy looting. In dread of what might happen, many inhabitants of the city made preparations for flight. It is reported that trains out of the city were crowded with refugees. The Chinese officials were unprepared to give the city proper protection, and asked the Japanese to remain on guard.
The Chinese Government at Peking thereupon acted in a characteristic Chinese fashion. Instead of assuring proper police protection to the city, it paid over one hundred thousand dollars to the bandits to refrain from violence. Moreover, it is reported from Peking that a thousand of the bandits have been incorporated in the Tsingtau police force. So everything is arranged most happily.
According to a despatch from Tsingtau, the Chinese flag was raised over the Administration Building there on December 10 for the first time in twenty-four years. Japan has shown her good faith.
IRISH AGAINST IRISH
OTHING could be more deplorable than the hateful and tragie strug
gle that is going on between the Irish who uphold the Free State and the Irish who are permitting all sorts of lawless acts in the name of an ideal republic. So far as form is concerned, the Free State is now established. Its Constitution has been accepted by the Irish Provisional Parliament and by the British Parliament. Timothy M. Healy, a tried and true Irish patriot, has been appointed Governor-General, and this is said to be the first time that a GovernorGeneral for a Dominion has not been a titled Englishman. The Free State Government is organized and in most respects is working satisfactorily. Yet
there is an inter-Irish, irregular, bloody combat going on, with assassination on one side and retaliation on the other. No wonder that Ulster now refuses to join the Irish Free State.
The policy of retaliation was not successful when it was half recognized by the British Government in the "black and tan" troubles; it remains to be seen whether it will work as between two factions of Irish people. The argument for it is that nine-tenths, as some say, of Irish voters are in favor of the Free State; that the small remainder do not fight in the open as in war, but kill and destroy where there is no resistance; that the only way of dealing with them is through implacable measures. On the other hand, many deprecate the official announcement that whenever political assassinations occur the Free State authorities will execute prisoners who have been found guilty of carrying arms contrary to law, and that these executions will be through courts martial. The execution of four fairly well known rebel leaders which followed the execution of Childers was of this nature. It rtainly would be less repellent to ane sentiment if the men executed or the reprisal order were those who been found guilty of some definite
act, such as plotting assassination or committing specific outrages. The executions were followed by various acts of violence, and it is still doubtful whether the new policy will help or hinder the establishment of the Free State.
The Irish Senators are generally men of recognized ability and moderation. The names include those of Sir Horace Plunkett, William Butler Yeats, George Russell, Lord Mayo, and Lord Dunraven. These and others of their colleagues certainly fill the condition of the new Constitution that the Senators should be "citizens who have done honor to the nation by reason of useful public service, or who because of special qualifications or attainments represent important aspects of the nation's life." There are to be sixty Senators, with a term of twelve years.
THE STATE OF AGRICULTURE
HERE is no Government report which
Tis of greater importance than that
of the Secretary of Agriculture. Secretary Wallace, one of the ablest men in the President's Cabinet, has in this year's report of his Department placed graphically before the country the condition of American farms.
For the past three years farmers, com
prising one-third of the population, have labored under a serious disadvantage as compared with other groups of workers because of the disproportionate relationship of prices. Secretary Wallace says: Certainly no other industry could have taken the losses agriculture has taken and maintain production, and we have no evidence to show that any other group of workers would have taken the reduction in wages in the spirit in which the farmers have taken their reduction. Many thousands of farmers have not been able to weather the storm, notwithstanding their strenuous efforts. Thousands who purchased land during the period of high prices have been obliged to give up the struggle, let their land go back, lose all the money they paid for it, and start anew. Many thousands of renters who had substantial savings invested in farm equipment and live stock have gone through the same experience and have lost everything.
Apparently the Secretary believes that the turn in the road has been reached. He continues:
It is fair to say that in general the farmers of the United States are in a better position financially now than they were a year or eighteen months ago. Farm products are selling at considerably higher prices, and it is estimated the aggregate value of the crops in the country this year is about $1,250,000,000 more than last year.
Another reason for rejoicing he finds in the willingness of those engaged in industry, commerce, and finance to bring about a more favorable adjustment for the farmer:
Such people are coming to realize more and more the menace to themselves in conditions so unfavorable to agriculture as those of the past three years. Their attitude towards the farmer has changed from that of a benevolent paternalism such as was so much in evidence during the ten years preceding the war. They now understand more clearly that their own future is inseparably linked up with the farmer, and that in doing what they can to help him get on his feet again they are helping themselves as well.
Rightly the Secretary says that agriculture cannot be placed upon the exact basis of which manufacturing is capable, but he believes that much can be done to improve present conditions.
It will never be possible for the farmers to relate their production to profitable demand with the nicety of the manufacturer, both because they cannot control the elements which influence production and cannot estimate demand so closely. Neither will the farmers ever be able to organize, as have the labor unions, and by rules and regulations and disciplinary measures compel obedience to policies adopted. They can, however, bring about a better adjustment of production. and especially of marketing, to the needs and purchasing ability of
THE FEDERAL FACT-FINDING COAL COMMISSION
The Commission, composed of seven members including former Vice-President Marshall, will make a thorough investigation of the bituminous and anthracite industries with a view to the prevention of strikes. In the picture, left to right, around the table, are: Judge Samuel Anschuler, of Aurora, Illinois; George Otis Smith, of Washington, D. C.; Thomas R. Marshall, of Indianapolis, Indiana; John Hays Hammond, of Washington, D. C.; Charles P. Neill, of Washington, D. C.; Clark Howell, of Atlanta, Georgia
(C) Harris & Ewing
possible customers if they will perfect their organizations and call to their aid men skilled in interpreting conditions which influence supply and demand. Better adjustment of farm production is worth striving for. Both the farmers and the consuming public would be benefited through more stable production, and therefore more stable prices.
Secretary Wallace brings to his present office the background of lifelong experience with farms and farm conditions. His words are worth listening to.
A STATE TAX ON COAL
HE United States Supreme Court's ruling that Pennsylvania is entitled to tax her output of hard coal fastens a burden upon the class of consumer least able to bear it-the householder. For, while the State will collect this ad valorem tax of 12 per cent from the producer, the latter will of course collect it indirectly from the consumer. Thus to successive wage boosts at the mine, which in turn increase the retail price of this necessity, is added a tax which is expected to bring the Keystone State a revenue of at least $7,500,000 a year.
In reaching its decision the Supreme Court was concerned only with the legal aspect of the case; whether such a tax was fair to some twenty other hard-coalconsuming States did not enter into the question. The Court merely ruled that any State can impose a tax upon its products before they are put into interState commerce, even though other States are large consumers of such prod
ucts and do not produce them. So Pennsylvania lays the coal tax at the mouth of the mine, before it actually starts on its road to other States, and compels the people of these States to pay a special tax to help support Pennsylvania. And the higher the price of coal, the greater will be Pennsylvania's pecuniary benefit.
At present the tax is 15 cents on every $10 ton of coal. But there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that would prevent Pennsylvania from increasing the tax to any amount she pleases. There is, however, the Pennsylvania user of domestic-size anthracite to consider, for upon him as well as upon the outsider the coal tax falls. Were it not for the fact that the voter of Pennsylvania has it in his power to rise up and smite the Legislature which passed the law should an exorbitant tax be levied, the danger of an increase in the tax might be very real, for most of the anthracite mined in Pennsylvania is burned in other States.
Pennsylvania can impose this tax without a qualm, because Pennsylvania has no competitor in the production of hard coal. Her monopoly, in fact, is more complete than that of any other State over any widely used commodity. Having such a monopoly, it can legally place a tax on the residents of other States by forcing the tax into the price the consumer must pay or go without warmth.
Since Pennsylvania is permitted to levy a tax against her sister States on a household necessity in which she has
a practical monopoly, other States may follow her example. In fact, Minnesota already taxes her output of iron ore. The possibilities in this direction are not to be disregarded.
Another dangerous possibility in the instance of Pennsylvania is that the coal operators may be permitted to fix prices and the union official the wages of miners without fear of competition. There is no practicable substitute for anthracite at this time, although the high price of the commodity and the uncertainty of its supply because of strikes have caused many consumers to seek substitutes, such as oil and soft coal. But anthracite is still considered a household necessity in some twenty States.
an article in this journal, "The people of the United States are facing a certain shortage of anthracite coal next winter." He based his belief on the fact that during the two months of strike that had then elapsed the shortage in hard-coal mining was such that it would be difficult to catch up with it. For months following the strike continued, and when it ceased there was a shortage of millions of tons of anthracite.
The people who use hard coal have for the most part taken the situation philosophically, have not shown signs of desperate alarm, and are doing their best to cope with the situation
much gain has been made toward wiping out the shortage of coal. The United States official figures of production show this. It is evident that where substitutes can be used for hard coal or economy can reduce the amount of fuel used it is every one's duty to act in accordance with the pressure of the situation. Federal and State authorities have published careful and practical suggestions in this direction, and such an article was published in The Outlook for November 22. Soft coal of good quality, coke, and smaller sizes of anthracite than are usually regarded as desirable for furnaces may, with care, be used to advantage in this crisis.
Meanwhile the Coal Commission appointed by President Harding, commonly called the Fact-Finding Commission, is, no doubt, studying the situation carefully. We hope that it has its agents directly on the field and that it is not depending solely on printed statistics and the evidence of experts, whether union experts or operators' ex: perts. This is the kind of situation that is best met by original investigation through skilled and reliable personal representatives.
Assuredly, the public which uses hard coal is entitled to know whether coal owners, union miners, coal-carrying railways, and distributers are all doing their best. For instance, we hope that there will be a thorough and drastic inquiry into a statement credited by the New York "Tribune" to Mr. C. J. Golden, President of District No. 9, of the United Mine Workers of America, one of the three districts in the anthracite region. Mr. Golden, according to the "Tribune," charges that the order by New York's State Coal Administrator to use for domestic purposes some of the so-called "steam size" of anthracite "will serve only to give added profit to the coal operators, who are flooding the market with the steam sizes because of the much larger profit which the sale of these grades nets them."
Mr. Golden, according to this article, asserts that "hundreds of miners who could be at work producing freshly mined domestic sizes are walking the streets without work," while at the same time the coal producers have "loaded thousands of cars with coal from the culm banks for which they knew there was no demand."
This is a very serious charge. It amounts to saying that the mining companies are deliberately refusing to do their best to get the proper sizes of domestic anthracite coal to consumers and are abusing the situation to force the sale of undesirable sizes.
The article states that Mr. Golden is to go before the Fact-Finding Commis
sion some time in January. Certainly the Commission should lose no time in putting such a charge to the test. If it is a partisan lie, it should be exposed; if it has any truth in it, the truth should be known.
HARDING'S ADVICE TO CONGRESS
READING of President Harding's Message, which was delivered in Congress on December 8, leaves upon the mind of any one but an extreme partisan an impression of a personality rather than a policy. This is not of itself the sign of any defect. On the contrary, at a time like this, when there is evidently much unrest and confusion of mind in the people, it may be actually a virtue in the Presidential Message that there should be no appearance of an attempt to formulate for the people any policy that could be termed definitely radical or conservative. And yet the Message does not give the impression of a series of unrelated, much less of inconsistent, recommendations. There is a unity in the Message which is supplied by the personality behind it. Some of the recommendations are obviously acceptable to men considered progressive; some are in line with measures advocated by men who class themselves as radical; some of the recommendations are plainly dictated by considerations which appeal to men who are regarded as conservative. From the Message it would be hard to gather evidence that the President himself belonged to any group. The path which the President has marked out for himself seems to cut across various domains; but all the while one is impressed by the fact that the man who is following that path is a man of good will, of experience, of open mind, of conviction without excess of emotion and without obtrusive prejudices. So far as it expresses a political philosophy, the Message is that of one who apparently has taken advice from many sources and has come to his conclusions by the process of weighing in each case the counsel that he has received and accepting that which, in his judgment, turns the balance on the side of common sense and practical wisdom.
The political effect of such a Message is in some respects like that of one which might be drawn up with the design of enlisting the most varied kind of support and of dividing the opposition. How, for instance, is it conceivable that the so-called radical group can be mobilized enthusiastically in opposition to
the President because of his recommendations concerning railway labor legislation when that same group find that the President is strongly in favor of some of the things that they want, such as the extension of credits to the farmer and the adoption of a Constitutional amendment permitting a Federal child labor law? There is no indication, however, that the Message was drawn up with any such design. There is, on the contrary, every indication that it is the expression of the President's mature judgment upon the subjects with which he deals. Its spirit is such as to make any criticism of it which is purely factional or partisan seem unworthy. The Constitution provides that the President "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Presi dent Harding's Message makes the impression that he has been guided, not by political design, but by his judgment of what is necessary and expedient in making his recommendations.
AN OUTLINE OF THE MESSAGE For the severest problems of government President Harding finds a single cause. It is, to use his own phrase, the "readjustment of the social and economic order" after the World War. More specifically, he finds it to be the attitude of individuals toward this readjustment-the fact that every one, to put it broadly, wants war-time compensation with pre-war expenditures, seeking readjustment for everybody except himself.
If the President could convince, not Congress, but the great majority of his fellow-countrymen of this, he would probably save Congress from a good deal of its legislative task. It is obviously impossible for the President to do this directly; but if this very simple idea (which probably is one of the ideas which called forth from a Congressional critic of the Message the scornful comment, "Latitude, longitude, platitudes") could be made the subject of editorials, and sermons, and conversations the country over for the next few months we imagine that the whole people would be saved from many of the difficulties that are ahead of them.
The President does not expect a restoration of the old order; he does not think that any one regards it as desirable; but he believes that humanity needs to be committed to "the tranquil ways of peace." In this he is not thinking primarily of international relations, but rather chiefly of the social, financial, and economic problems at home; for, as he says, "every nation must be able to carry