He

At first the assassination was ascribed to political motives, on the supposition, apparently, that the turbulent and exciting political conditions in Poland had something to do with the matter. The victim's political opponents had attacked him as a radical and asserted that he favored non-Poles (meaning chiefly Polish Jews) and foreign-born races. was himself a Swiss citizen until recently, although he was born in Warsaw. It soon appeared, however, that the assassin, Niewadomski, was certainly a person of unbalanced mind and probably was positively demented. This has led to a very general comparison of the crime with the assassination of President Garfield by Guiteau. In both cases probably the effect of sensational and irresponsible political attacks on the victim had some effect on the minds of the assassins.

One Polish newspaper expressed the belief that the crime has a serious aspect because of the present political complications; another spoke more positively, but perhaps without full information, as to political motives for the crime itself; there is a general and evidently sincere expression in Poland of horror and condemnation. Following the assassination there have been many arrests of persons suspected of connection with political plots and disorder. It is stated that Niewadomski's wildness and irresponsibility had led to his expulsion from two separate political parties.

General Haller, some of whose followers were accused, probably recklessly, of being implicated in the crime, has a notably fine record of war service and is known to Americans because he commanded in France the American, British, and Polish volunteers.

Marshal Pilsudski, the successor of Mr. Paderewski as Premier of Poland, is now at the head of the Polish army, replacing General Sikorski, who has become Premier at the head of a newly organized Cabinet.

Despite all that has been said about the tendency of the Poles' fierceness in

political life and about their warlike propensities, it is pointed out by Mr. Paderewski in his comments deploring the recent crime that this is the first time in the history of Poland that a ruler has been assassinated.

AT LAUSANNE

TO

Iwo somewhat incongruous subjects are occupying the attention of the Lausanne Conference at this writingthe Turkish proposal to banish the Patriarch of the Greek Church, and the control of Mosul, which means oil, although that word is carefully avoided in all the discussions. Turkey's willingness to join the League of Nations if she can have her way as to Mosul has an almost humorous aspect.

Meanwhile conditions as to the use of the Dardanelles Straits and the waters to the east, including the Black Sea, are still under debate. The plan now most favored seems to be to allow each nation to have in those waters at one time only three warships, which should be of not over ten thousand tons. This is not acceptable to Russia, but seems to be fairly satisfactory to the other nations. It does not exactly accord with the American view, but we shall probably be satisfied with permission to send small war-vessels on peaceful errands to Black Sea ports, which is really what our delegates most insist upon.

The proposal to banish the Greek Patriarch has naturally excited opposi

tion and hostility throughout the Christian peoples of the East. Greece especially resents this action. A vigorous protest has been received by the Conference from religious organizations in England and America in nowise affiliated with the Greek Church.

In every matter that comes up for discussion at Lausanne the Conference runs against the continued assertion of Turkey that it must and will have absolute national independence and integrity. Ismet Pasha declares that his Government will not accept any sacrifice of principle involving Turkish independence, but that it is ready to make reasonable treaties which shall conform with international law and reciprocity and that the Nationalist Government recognizes the power of its people as fully as does any other governing body.

This sounds logical, but, as we have said before, the Powers have in the history of the past good reasons to make them demand assurances as to the treatment of their own peoples in Turkey and for the recognition of the rights of minorities in Turkey as against religious or racial persecution.

I

REPARATION

NOT REPRISAL

Fa Rip Van Winkle had waked just

in time to read American newspapers about the middle of this month he might have easily concluded that Germany had been invaded by her neighbors, had been subjected to devastation, had lost her factories and her railways, and in general had been deprived by her enemies of the common means of livelihood.

It is not by chance that the picture of a prostrate and suffering Germany has appeared again at this time. France has suggested the possibility of seizing certain German property in the Ruhr unless satisfactory payments on account of reparations are made by January 15. A similar picture of German poverty has been presented every time a day of reckoning has approached. And the picture has called forth a generous response from the sympathies of the world.

GUARANTIES FOR EVERYBODY BUT FRANCE

The people of America and England in particular have become very sorry for Germany. They do not like to think of her university professors living on the edge of starvation. They do not like to hear about German children being short of food and clothing. So sympathetic with Germany have people become that a resolution has been introduced into Congress providing for an appropriation

of $70,000,000 to feed the starving Ger

mans and Austrians.

The farmers of the Western States have, moreover, seen the opportunity of providing the starving Germans with millions of bushels of wheat if there is only some way by which they can get payment for it. Bankers have been talking about providing a loan for Germany on condition that they can get a perfectly trustworthy guaranty for the ultimate payment of the loan. English politicians and business people are moved with a desire to see Germany placed back upon her feet, since a prosperous Germany will provide a market for British exports-that is, will be able to pay for them. So sympathy has formed a partnership with business instincts.

Of course English merchants and American farmers and American bankers want guaranties.

But everybody seems to be denouncing France for wanting a guaranty too.

NOT REVENGE, BUT A MORTGAGE Why is it righteous for American farmers and American bankers to require a guaranty, and wicked for Frenchmen to do so? A search into history reveals the fact that it was not

Germany that was invaded, after all, but France. It was French factories which were destroyed. It was French land that was devastated. It was French mines that were deliberately and maliciously flooded.

It has already been decided that France is not morally required to pay for what Germany did to her. It has been decided that Germany owes all that she can pay to undo the damage she did. For the payment of this debt France received the offer of a guaranty, by a treaty of alliance with Great Britain and America, but never received the guaranty itself. She expected some kind of guaranty from the League of Nations, but has been disappointed there. The only guaranty that is left to her is to take a mortgage on some of the German real estate-for example, in the industrial region of the Ruhr. But Great Britain and America are very sure that such a mortgage would not be for their interests. There is nothing punitive or vengeful about bankers wanting a guaranty for a loan; there is nothing punitive or vengeful about American farmers wanting payment for wheat even from hungry people in Germany; but somehow the impression has got abroad that in desiring a guaranty for the payment that is justly due her France is proving herself to be in a vengeful and punitive mood.

Bonar Law, the British Prime Minister, has not been in sympathy with the French desire to take possession of the industrial resources of the Ruhr; but he has seemed to understand the French point of view better than his predecessor. He has stated it to Parliament as follows:

I think it is right that we should try to look at these questions from the point of view of France. What is their view? Germany undertook to pay a very large amount. Almost nothing has been paid.

Since then we have had conference after conference, and what has been the result? The result has been in every case, in one form or another, that at the end of the period of moratorium we have found ourselves in a worse position for getting money out of Germany than we were before the discussions.

That is the view of France. She may also very fairly say that this result is largely due to the deliberate action of Germany.

Now, what was that action? There is not the smallest doubt that the German Government did allow this tremendous depreciation to take place, and it is a fact that this depreciation does make it impossible for Germany to meet these reparations payments.

The French go further-they say it has been deliberately done by Germany. Well, honestly, I cannot myself take that view. I cannot do it, for this reason: by the method of passive resistance they could forever avoid paying the indemnity.

But there is this to be said for the French view-the inflation has enabled the great industrial groups who exercise great power in Germany to make enormous fortunes, although it was part of the arrangement with the German Government that this should not take place and that the money should be made available for reparations.

There is no doubt whatever that, if there had been a strong enough Government in Germany to face the real position, it was their clear duty, and not only in their own interest, that they should try to put their finances on a sound basis. They have never tried. Maybe this was not their policy, maybe they had not the power, but that is the result.

AMERICA NOT A NEUTRAL

Though the American Government has not at this writing made any official announcement, it is clear that the Administration is considering the possibility of some action to aid in rescuing Europe from economic chaos. Ambassador Harvey has been summoned from England. Unofficial statements have appeared in the press indicating very clearly that the President has a plan or plans under consideration.

Among the rumors regarded as important enough to be cabled as news abroad was the suggestion of a loan of $1,500,000,000 to Germany. There is no intimation that this would be a Government loan; but it is strongly intimated that American bankers would not be willing to float such a loan unless it was backed by the guaranty of the American Government.

Objections from both Britain and France have at once been raised to such a loan as this. The objection that is at once obvious is that such a loan, if practicable at all, would take precedence over Germany's debts to other countries. Another objection is that no bonds of such a loan could be sold unless France undertook not to get any guaranty herself by seizing German property. Still further objection is that such a loan would be utterly inadequate to stabilize the mark, and even if it were used for that purpose would, according to certain economists, bring about an utter collapse of German industry.

In this situation the "Journal of Commerce," which has a very practical knowledge of finance, sees "hopeful symptoms." It is significant that it bases its opinion as to the chance of improvement, not upon any specific financial programme, but upon the sign that Germany is more willing to do her part than she has seemed to be heretofore, that France is showing a better spirit, that Great Britain under Bonar Law is substituting common sense for selfish policies, and that the "entente between Great Britain, France, and Italy

is on a firmer ground than at any time since the war."

It is certain that the chief question is not one of pounds or francs or marks; it is a question of mind and heart and will. There is little chance that America can do much merely with her dollars. There is chance that America can contribute to a clearer understanding, a better disposition, and a firmer purpose in all the nations involved.

We hope, however, that, whatever America does, she will not assume the rôle of arbitrator. The fact is we are not in the position of an arbitrator. We are not and cannot be, in either justice to other nations or justice to ourselves, a neutral. We cannot assume a lofty attitude, as if we had never taken part in the conflict. We did take part on the side of justice and liberty. Upon us as well as upon other nations rests the duty of seeing that those who were aggressors in that conflict shall not shift their burdens to their victims.

JOHN WANAMAKER, MERCHANT

T takes more than success to make a career memorable and significant. A. T. Stewart made a great commercial success because he was the first to put into effect certain sound business ideas, such as one fixed price, and be cause he was shrewd in buying and an indefatigable worker. But his success did not have deep roots; after his death the business fell off deplorably. Then came John Wanamaker, with the background of the Philadelphia enterprise that he built up year by year after a modest start with a few thousand dollars, until it came to have a turn-over of $25,000,000 a year. He took over the Stewart stores in New York. For a time success and failure seemed to hang even in the balance.

What won was John Wanamaker's personality; he put himself into the organization; he made each department a store in itself, each buyer for a department a minor merchant. People went to his stores, not so much in search of bargains (for there were cheaper department stores), but because merchandising was there carried on with skill and knowledge and by the gathering of goods from world-wide commerce, and because taste and variety were aimed at constantly. The customers liked also the art and musical treats furnished them without charge, a distinctive feature of Mr. Wanamaker's invention.

In all ways the great merchant thought of the human and æsthetic elements as well as those of cost, price, and profit.

He regarded the business of

great store as having professional and idealistic sides, and he sought for the good will and kindly feeling of those who worked for him as well as of those who bought from him.

As in his business, so in his relations to his fellow-citizens, Mr. Wanamaker was easily and naturally friendly. He was a philanthropist, not from pressure or to be praised, but because he truly cared for others. He started a profit system in the Philadelphia store many years ago; he founded libraries, pension and benefit clubs for employees, and a cadet corps for the boys; he became a large factor in the National building up of the Young Men's Christian Association; he was a noted figure in Sundayschool work, and said that it was his best way of resting; as PostmasterGeneral under President Harrison he used his business astuteness for the general good.

Always, as a friend writes of him, John Wanamaker ennobled service; he dignified labor; he made business a profession equal to any other. He wrote his own epitaph when he said: "Thinking, trying, toiling, and trusting in God is all of my biography."

A

TINKERING

MENDING the Constitution promises to become an annual pastime. Like football, for example.

Even President Harding has joined in the sport, and has advocated not one, but two Constitutional amendments.

The latest attempt at amendment is one made by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and is for the purpose of changing the terms of the President, Vice-President, Senators, and Representatives and the machinery of the Presidential election.

What agriculture or forestry has to do with the subject of the proposed amendment passes the mind of any one but a Senator to understand. The explanation-it cannot be called a reasonfor this strange procedure is Senator Caraway's desire to have a resolution of his, for which this proposed amendment was substituted, scrutinized by the friendly eyes of the committee of which Senator Norris is chairman.

The purpose of the amendment is good. The intentions of those who favor it are of the best. The effect of the amendment, if put into operation, would be partly harmful, but mainly beneficent. We doubt very much, however, whether all the good that it is proposed to do by this amendment could not be equally as well done by law.

The chief object which this amend

International

JOHN WANAMAKER

ment would accomplish is a prompter response to the people's will as shown by their votes. At present the people in November of one year vote for a Congress which normally does not meet until the December of the following year. At present the people elect a President in November, and yet the President who is supplanted remains in office until the following March. This delay between the command of the people and its execution was well enough, and indeed quite necessary, in the day of the post-chaise in a sparsely settled land of pioneers. It is altogether unnecessary and unjustified in the days of the railway and the telegraph in a land of a people long trained in self-government. The amendment now proposed would summon Congress into session on the first Monday of the January following the November election, and two weeks after the assembling of Congress would place in office the newly elected President.

For this desirable change it seems to us somewhat doubtful whether an amendment to the Constitution is necessary.

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents Congress from providing by law that the Representatives elected in November shall take office on the first of January following. Since that is so. the new Congress can assemble on the first of January without a Constitutional amendment. It is true that according to the Constitution Senators are elected for six years, and if that be construed as preventing Senators from having their terms shortened by two months by law, nothing prevents the old Senate meeting with the new House. As the Senate is

a slowly changing body, anyway, this is not serious.

As for the changing of the inauguration of the President from the Fourth of March to the third Monday in Januarya very desirable change-there is nothing in the Constitution itself preventing it except the provision that the President shall be elected for four years. The first President of the United States, however, was elected for four years, and yet his first term was only from April 30, 1789, to the Fourth of March of the fourth year later-that is, nearly two months short of four years. Since the Constitution provides that the Congress shall "assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December unless they shall by law appoint a different day;" and since the shortening of Washington's first term is a good precedent; we see no reason why Congress (perhaps leaving the newly elected Senators to take their seats later) should not by law summon the newly elected Congress into assembly on the first Monday, and place in office the newly elected President on the third Monday, in the January following their election.

If a Constitutional amendment be necessary for this purpose, it need be only a very simple one.

Mr. Norris's amendment, on the other hand, is cumbersome, clumsy in phraseology, and in a great part unnecessary. Not only would it change the date of the inauguration, but it would also abolish the Electoral College without changing in any appreciable degree the very sound principle of voting by States. If Mr. Norris's amendment were to make the election of the President a matter of mere majority vote of the total of all the voters in any Presidential election, the abolition of the Electoral College would be significant, though at the same time it would be contrary to the best interests of the country. Mr. Norris's amendment, however, simply substitutes the impersonal votes of the respective States for the votes cast by persons called electors.

It is claimed that this change, if made, will make possible the election of a candidate for President from one party and a candidate for Vice-President from another. This would be not progress. but reaction. It would be reversion to the original provision of the Constitution, which was a blemish that was re moved from it only seventeen years and eight days after its adoption.

It is claimed that this change, if made, will make it possible to elect to the Presidency a candidate who has no regular party support. Is this desirable? We do not think so. At least the burden of proof rests upon those who advocate this means of destroying-or making