(C) Keystone GENERAL PERSHING LAYING A WREATH AT THE FOOT OF THE LAFAYETTE STATUE IN UNION SQUARE, NEW YORK CITY, SEPTEMBER 6

entitled "The French in the Heart of America," presided at this meeting, at the close of which General Pershing— whose name will go down in history as the author of the phrase, "Lafayette, nous voila!" (Lafayette, we are here!) laid a wreath upon the statue of the great Franco-American Revolutionary patriot. There were anniversary services held in old St. Paul's Church on lower Broadway, and in the churchyard there was an interesting ceremony in which water from the Marne and earth from Ay, France, were placed upon the grave of the distinguished engineer, Lieutenant-Colonel Stephen Roche-Fontaine, who served on the staff of Washington.

In the afternoon members of the National Committee escorted General Pershing and Count Charles de Chambrun, a great-grandson of Lafayette, to West Point, where a ceremony was held near the statue of Lafayette on the beautiful parade ground of the Military Academy. Colonel Franklin Q. Brown, of the National Committee, presided, and the attendance of the Superintendent of the Academy, with members of his staff, and a large body of the corps of cadets,

made of the occasion a beautiful military spectacle. The chief address was delivered by Maurice Léon, of the New York Bar, who originated the idea of the celebration of September 6 as the joint anniversary of the Battle of the Marne and the birth of Lafayette. Mr. Léon eloquently reviewed the attachment and sacrifices of Lafayette for the young American Republic, and the aid which more than a hundred years later the American people and American soldiers and sailors gave to the Republic of France in her struggle for liberty. The French and American Republics have many bonds of sympathy that they should foster in mutual understanding and in pursuing a common aim in the progress of democratic civilization. This was vividly suggested by an anecdote of General Pétain which Mr. Léon related:

In July, 1918, near the Marne, General Pétain, commander-in-chief of the French Armies, stepped out of his headquarters as the advance guard of the American forces were going forward to meet the German rush toward Château Thierry. He stood silently and for a long time watched them pass by, an unending column of splendid manhood. Then he came in. His officers listened for

a comment. It is reported that all he said was, "For us this is a transfusion of blood."

An inopportune thunder-storm drove the large audience which had gathered on the parade ground into the beautiful assembly room of Cullom Hall, where the Count de Chambrun, who is French Chargé d'Affaires in Washington during Ambassador Jusserand's absence, made a stirring address in finished English. General Pershing read messages froni Marshal Joffre and Marshal Foch, and used those messages as the text for as delightful an occasional speech as could have been asked for by the most exacting critic. He said that he had not intended to take part in the "battle of oratory" of the day, but he showed himself as much of a master of oratorical technic as he is of military tactics. His presence and his speaking constituted one of the most graceful tributes to Lafayette that the day produced.

VARDAMAN LOSES HIS HOLD

ON MISSISSIPPI

T is a pleasure to record the fact that

I'exs senator Ve to record the fact that

feated for the Democratic nomination for United States Senator from Mississippi. Vardaman and his kind have long been a drag upon the political life of their State. The contradictions of American politics have never been more clearly illustrated than by the fact that men like Vardaman, Russell, and Bilbo could be selected by the same electorate that chose the keen-minded John Sharp Williams as its Senatorial representative.

For a first-hand report of the feeling in Mississippi The Outlook telegraphed to Mr. Frederick W. Jones, of Hollandale, Mississippi, who recently contributed to this journal articles upon the flood menace and the insurance scandals in his native State. In reply to our query Mr. Jones telegraphed us as follows:

Vardaman's defeat means new political life for Mississippi, also a return of honor and the assurance of prosperity. Russell and Bilbo, the present Governor and his immediate predecessor, both of whom have brought scandal upon the office, went down with the ex-Senator. With them goes a hitherto dominant faction that has held power through demagoguery and corporation baiting.

The women of Mississippi in their first opportunity to use the ballot saved the day. In the first primary Vardaman led Stephens by 8,000 votes, but Miss Kearney, the third candidate, polled 18,000 and made a second primary necessary. In the interval between the two primaries she advocated the election of Stephens. Governor in Russell's statement Memphis after the first primary that he was writing many letters urging the election of Vardaman also cost the ex-Senator heavily. The BilboRussell type of Governor with its

1922

insane-hospital scandal and Birkhead seduction suit has but scant support among the women.

The election sets free forces of decency and fair play scarcely to be measured.

Corporations such as the great fire insurance companies driven out of the State by the revenue agent are assured of a larger measure of justice. Russell and Vardaman ported the agent in his raid. primary has saved the State and the Nation from a peculiarly wicked act of fraud and deceit.

sup

The

Vardaman, whose voice has thrilled thousands of his supporters in other campaigns, did not raise it once in this. His managers said his teeth had been extracted and he could not make himself understood from the platform. His campaigning has been done by proxy.

The future is bright. Next year some of the most conscientious political leaders the State has developed in a generation will be candidates for Governor, including Sennett Connor, the young Speaker of the House. A wondrous change from Vardaman, Russell, and Bilbo days.

Mississippi is to be congratulated.

WITH THE VOTERS AND CANDIDATES

HERE have been other interesting elections besides those in Mississippi. Wisconsin Republicans have again proved their loyalty to La Follette by giving him another nomination to his present office. Senator La Follette's hold upon his State is not easy to analyze. His record at Washington has been erratic. In judgment he has frequently been seriously at fault, although it certainly must be said that his vote has been governed by his convictions rather than by self-interest. Some of his success is due to the fact that though he was once classified as an insurgent, with a rod in pickle for any political machine, he has built up a personal organization in his own State which works on ball bearings.

In Maryland Senator France has, like La Follette, secured a renomination to his present office in the Republican primaries. He defeated Mr. John W. Garrett, who was Secretary of the Washington Arms Conference.

The Democrats can apparently take little comfort from the elections in Maine. Maine, as all Americans know, holds its State elections in September. The vote in this State has always been regarded as an indication of the general political trend of the country, the varying majorities of Maine serving as a political barometer. This year Senator Hale and the Republican State ticket have been re-elected to office by a majority which appears at this writing to indicate no significant loss of Republican prestige.

THE OUTLOOK

Harris & Ewing

H. D. STEPHENS, OF MISSISSIPPI

THE INDUSTRIAL SITUATION: THE COAL STRIKE

FTER an inexcusably leisurely delay of a week or more following the general agreement of union leaders and operators to resume hard-coal mining, the contracts have been formally signed and actual work began in the mines on September 11; 155,000 workers reported and the number is increasing every day. The mines were closed 163 days, there has been no summer production, and it is obviously impossible to catch up with the shortage actually existing. Danger of an actual coal famine is averted; but the householder will have to get his hard coal in small quantities, and he is urged to save it by careful stoking and handling and to employ substitutes such as coke, hard-surfaced and screened soft coal, and wood so far as possible. Congress will probably soon send to the President the two bills (now in conference between the Houses) that in different form have passed both Houses, one setting up a fact-finding commission for the coal industry, the other providing against profiteering and for priorities and fair distribution of coal. Both recognize that a National emergency exists in the production, transportation, and distribution of coal and other fuel, but neither looks forward to future emergencies by providing a permanent National Coal Commission.

fall in later. This to some extent parallels the way in which the strike condi tion in the soft-coal industry was weakened. In both cases the result sought was that unions should abandon their demand for settlement on a National basis and that operators and workers who wanted to come together should be allowed to do so. The railway executives claim that, what with loyal employees and new men, they have a fairly competent force at work now and that before long the strike is bound to collapse of its own weight. On the other hand, Mr. Gompers declares that the shopmen's fight is now stronger than ever. The embargo on Western freight other than food announced by four Eastern railways is based on a desire to give coal priority, but labor men say that it indicates a shortage of locomotives.

In this situation it is doubtful whether the sweeping injunction asked by Attorney-General Daugherty is not a hindering rather than a helpful influ

ence.

At all events, it has been occupying the public attention and stirring up lawyers, economists, and industrial leaders on both sides almost to the exclusion of other controversies.

When the temporary Federal injunction came up in Chicago before Judge Wilkerson, who originally issued it, in an effort to make it permanent, an offhand effort to have it canceled, made by the defendant's attorneys, was properly dismissed, and as we write argument is going on as to the facts on which the injunction is based, its Constitutionality, and its legality under the Clayton Act. We print below press despatches summarizing the allegations of acts said to be committed by members of the shopmen's unions or by their adherents and supporters, as presented in affidavits to support the Attorney-General's claim that a state of terrorism and sabotage exists amounting to a conspiracy to interfere with inter-State commerce and the transmission of the mails:

Twenty-five murders, some of men, women, and children who were not opposing the strikers but were travelers on trains.

Twelve trains abandoned in the deserts of California and hundreds of passengers, some very old, some babies in arms and some ill, forced to live in terrific heat for periods of from one to four days.

Approximately 950

mail trains

forced to discontinue. A loss of $75,000,000 suffered by California

fruit-growers, unable to have their products transported.

Dynamiting, bombing, and setting fire to railroad property, including many bridges.

The removal of non-union coal cars from trains in Kentucky; tampering with the mechanism of 4,000 or 5,000

98

cars so they could not be moved and setting fire to others.

The drawing of spikes from rails in innumerable cases, endangering lives of workers and passengers.

It is understood that the AttorneyGeneral has expressed willingness to make changes in the original restraining order as to phrases which are construed by labor leaders as interfering with proper liberty of speech and of legal personal action. This charge has been voiced by Mr. Gompers in vehement language, accompanied by the declaration that "It is a well-known and wellestablished fact that organized labor has discouraged the resort of the railway strikers or even their friends or sympathizers to violent or unlawful methods. They have been counseled to confine their activities within the province of their Constitutional right."

A NEW GOLF KING

THE

HE Nation has a new amateur golf champion-a player who has never held that honor before. It was to Jesse Sweetser, a Yale undergraduate, that the wreath of victory fell.

Sweetser, in the course of the National tournament at Brookline, Massachusetts, defeated in turn William Hunter, a former British champion; Robert Jones, of championship caliber; Jesse Guilford, holder of the last year's American championship; and Charles Evans, who has twice won this honor. It was Evans who shared with Sweetser the final match of the tournament and who lost the chance of regaining his former title by a defeat of three down and two to play. Sweetser's deadly approaching was perhaps the deciding factor in his well-earned victory, though it would be hard to find any flaws in the rest of his game.

THE LABOR SITUATION

T

HE railroad strike still wends its weary way in spite of AttorneyGeneral Daugherty's sweeping injunctions or rather, perhaps, because of them. In The Outlook of September 6, Mr. Rollin Lynde Hartt quoted Mr. William Carman Roberts, an expert in the knowledge of public opinion as expressed through the daily press, as say. ing:

Never in my whole experience have I known strikes to be so generally condemned. As a rule, newspapers are inclined to side with the "under dog." This time, with the exception of the labor press, they have been almost unanimous in denouncing the strikers, the as strikes appeared

selfishly inopportune, coming just when a return of prosperity was in sight. The railway strike especially invited censure.

Strikes feed upon public sympathy; nothing so weakens a strike as the lack of it. Entirely apart from Mr. Daugherty's failure to understand or recognize legal and ethical precedents in his sweeping application, it may be said that he was guilty of a serious tactical mistake. The first result of his effort was to arouse public sympathy, which the strikers had been steadily alienating, in behalf of the unions. That this is not an unfair charge is indicated by the sudden modification made by Mr. Daugherty in the form of his application for an injunction when the Administration at Washington began to get the reaction of public opinion.

Stripped of all its legal technicalities and verbiage, the principle upon which an injunction may justly be based is a very simple one. The only true function of an injunction is to prevent the performance of an act which may result in an irreparable injury if it is committed. For example: A telephone or a telegraph company is running its lines along a village street, and to accomplish what it desires threatens to cut down an elm tree a hundred years old. The only recourse for the village, or for the property owner on whose land the elm tree stands, is an immediate injunction; for if the tree is cut down, no amount of damages awarded by the court can reproduce the tree. A hundred years is required for such a reproduction. But if the company erects an unsightly pole on private property, no injunction is needed. The owner can appeal to the court, and if the court decides that the pole is an injury, it can be removed and the status quo ante re-established.

If it comes to the knowledge of the authorities that a train crew are planning to abandon a train in the midst of a Western desert, an injunction is the proper remedy, because when the train is once abandoned, no court can supply an adequate remedy. To enjoin men, however, from meeting or speaking in behalf of strikes or strikers is unnecessary, because incendiary language which is contrary to the statute law can be punished by ordinary judicial procedure. Government by injunction is fraught with danger to free institutions. Injunctions should be resorted to and granted by the courts only when it is apparent that this is the only method that can avert a fundamental social or individual wrong.

But Mr. Daugherty is not by any means the only man to blame. The American people must share the respon

through their representatives in Congress have by the Clayton Act exempted labor organizations and farmers' organizations from the operation of the statute law, and then, when labor organizations acting under that exemption try to do things which injure or incense the public, that public, or a portion of it, clamors for injunctions. Is not this really an illogical and foolish way to handle the problem?

How simple it would be if the principle of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, which makes combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade illegal, were extended to all organizations, whether of capital, or of labor, or of agriculture. This would not, in spite of Mr. Gompers's alarms, prevent the individual workman or groups of workmen or great bodies of workmen from quitting their jobs or from collective bargaining. It would, however, give the public the protection of the courts, which would decide in the case of a great strike, like the coal strike or the railroad strike, what evidence there was of a conspiracy or of specific acts to restrain trade. If in addition the trade unions were incorporated with properly constituted treasuries making reports to the Government like the treasuries of every other corporation, they could be assessed damages for their illegal combinations in restraint of trade when the court so decided. This seems to us to be a prime and essential step to take before we can have any kind of logical and effective dealing with industrial conflicts in this country.

PUSSY-FOOTING

W

E wish some modern Savonarola could preach a series of denun ciatory sermons exposing the vice of pussy-footing. It is certainly one of the most pernicious and characteristic vices of present-day public men and governments.

What is pussy-footing?

The Lusitania was sunk by what the Federal Courts of the United States afterwards declared to be a murderous act of piracy, and some American statesmen were cautious in expressing any opinion in regard to it or in taking part in any public protest against it because their protest might affect the German vote.

That is pussy-footing.

Railroad strikers dynamite passenger cars; tamper with electric systems; endeavor to derail trains by removing bolts from the track; and abandon women and children to suffer from hunger and thirst in the desert; and states

men advocate the return of the strikers with their seniority rights unimpaired because of the labor vote.

That is pussy-footing.

Both Houses of Congress have passed a Bonus Bill, but both Houses are aware that public opinion is against the plan and they are relying on the President to veto the final measure; they fear to act according to their convictions because of the soldier vote.

That is pussy-footing.

The Senate has adopted a Tariff Act which is acknowledged to be the worst hodgepodge that the history of American industrialism has yet produced; but Republican Senators, instead of voting against it, have quietly shelved it in conference, hoping that it will die an unnoticed death and thus relieve them of antagonizing the manufacturing vote.

That is pussy-footing.

Fortunately for American self-respect, this kind of pussy-footing is not wholly confined to this country. One of the worst examples of it has just come to our attention, and the English must bear the brunt of the accusation.

The Turks have been committing indescribable atrocities in the Near East. This is nothing new. The Turks have been doing this kind of thing for some centuries. The Rev. Ralph S. Harlow, Professor of History and Sociology in the American College at Smyrna, has just arrived in this country. He has been in correspondence with The Outlook for many months, and has given us information which has aroused our indignation with regard to Turkish savagery. Within a few days he has been in the office of The Outlook, and photographs which he had of acts of atrocious murder and assault by the Turks on the Armenians and other nonTurkish people were so sickening that it was almost impossible to look at them. Tht Turkish situation became so intolerable that a few months ago the British Government invited the American Government to take part in an official investigation and report of these atrocities. France and Italy were to join in the undertaking. After some hesitation the American Government accepted the invitation, and this acceptance was hailed with joy in these columns as an indication that our Government was prepared to do its share when it could in restoring a civilized equilibrium in Europe. That official investigation, if it had taken place, might not have resulted in any organized attempt to stop the Turkish torturers by force; indeed, our Government expressly reserved the right not to commit itself to any further action than that of investigation and report; but the investigation alone

would have had a great and far-reaching moral influence.

Our joy has now been turned into indignation by learning that just as the American Government was about to appoint its official representatives on the investigating commission, it received an official communication from the British Government saying that the original plan contemplated was impracticable, and suggesting that the whole matter be referred to the International Red Cross. What has happened undoubtedly is that such pressure has been brought to bear on the British and French Governments by Mohammedans in India and Egypt and Tunis and Algiers that Great Britain and France are pussy-footing.

No investigation by the International Red Cross can begin to have the effect on public opinion or upon the Turkish Government that the official Governmental investigation by Great Britain, France, Italy, and the United States would have had. The whole plan has now ended in a complete and pitiable fiasco. We do not belittle the terrible problem which Great Britain has to face. A general uprising of the Mohammedan populations of India and Egypt as a method of expressing their sympathy with the Mohammedan torturers of Turkey would be a serious and perhaps a terrible menace to the British Empire. Nevertheless, pussy-footing never made, nor will it ever save, an empire.

T

DOG-DAYS

HE heat and vexation of the dogdays have plagued the world since the time of Pliny. This year they have culminated in a rather unusual outburst of international irritability. Mr. Kipling, for example, in an interview in the New York "World" reported by Mrs. Clare Sheridan, the English sculptress, says that Americans came too late into the war; that about all we did was to make eight per cent out of our war loans; and that we prevented the Allies from continuing the war and framing the terms of peace in Berlin. "They have got the gold," he says, speaking of us Americans, "but we have saved our souls."

Of course this has raised a storm of protest. It has been useful, however, in that it has brought to light an important historical fact. Mr. Weeks, Secretary of War, commenting on Mr. Kipling's assertion, says officially that General Pershing wished to continue to advance into Berlin, but that the hostilities were suspended and the Armistice signed when it was because of the insistence of Marshal Foch and the British General Haig.

We advise our readers not to take Mr. Kipling's strictures too seriously. He is

not a statesman, but a poet, and a rather irascible and temperamental one at that. Moreover, his reporter, Mrs. Sheridan, has an artistic and lively imagination, and is more interested in sensations than in statesmanship. The indiscretion of the interview is evidently not wholly Mr. Kipling's. In spite of his manifest and rather waspish desire to get under our skin, we shall go on reading "Puck of Pook's Hill" and "M'Andrew's Hymn" with equanimity and pleasure.

Another Briton has also succumbed to the heat of the dog-days. George Greenwood, of the "Daily Telegraph," in writ ing of the recent victory of American golfers over their British competitors, says:

Personally I see nothing wrong with British golf. The plain truth is we do not make a business of it, and I sincerely hope we never shall. . . . If the Americans in their pursuit of golf care to live on milk and fish, to eschew tobacco, and go to bed at ten o'clock, let them. I would rather see Tolley, Ray, and Vardon blowing clouds of tobacco smoke around the links than with their mouths full of chewing gum.

Dear! dear! If golf as a sport and a pastime is to be judged by the comparative moral advantages of chewing gum and tobacco, it will cease to be a pastime and degenerate into a mere educational system. The whole world seems to be becoming pedagogical and psychological. We do wish that Brother Greenwood would suppress his didactic tendencies long enough to let us get a little fun out of international competitions.

Another phenomenon of the dog-days is found in the tempest in a teapot which has been aroused by an article in a supplementary volume of the "Encyclopædia Britannica" on Mr. Newton Baker, Secretary of War in the Wilson Administration. Letters and interviews have appeared in the daily press denouncing the article because it calls Mr. Baker a politician. We think it was very wrong of the "Encyclopædia Britannica" to do this. The "Century Dictionary" defines a politician as "one who is versed in the science of government and the art of governing; one who is skilled in politics." Mr. Baker is an able lawyer; a fine citizen; a delightful neighbor; a man of high ideals and aspirations; but one who was not successful as a politician under the foregoing definition. He did more than any other man, except President Wilson, to ruin the political fortunes of his party. His motives and ideals may have been, and doubtless were, of the highest, but the fact remains that he was not a political success. The editor of the "Encyclopædia Britannica" in "