affiliated with the Committee of One Hundred, is growing with amazing rapiditya fact significant of the popular interest in the movement. Every member of Congress has been written to, and a large number have expressed their willingness to advocate health measures. The first legislative measure will be one to authorize the President to redistribute the existing scientific and health bureaus of the Government. The recent unfortunate experience with the present arrangement of bureaus in the navy is only one of many instances of lack of co-operation and co-ordination. It is not anticipated that these existing bureaus will oppose a rearrangement. On the contrary, it is known that most of them favor it, especially as, after the redistribution, their powers and appropriations, as well as their efficiency, will be increased. The Committee has received the indorsement of the American Medical Association and of a number of other organizations engaged in the work of human betterment, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science itself, which at its recent meeting voted that hereafter the Committee should

represent not only the Economic Section in which it originated, but the entire Association.

The Outlook has expressed Washington no opinion, and does not Schools propose to express any opinion, about the merits of the long and painful controversy which has been going on concerning the administration of public schools in Washington; but it is due to the school system of the capital of the Nation to say most emphatically that the matter cannot be settled by the discharge of Superintendent Chancellor. The controversy has been in the last degree painful. It has been needlessly complicated by the most intense personal feeling, and it has been conducted in many cases with a show of passion and an apparent absence of a desire to get at the facts which were peculiarly offensive in a controversy conducted by people interested in education and supposed, therefore, to set an example to the community in which they live. Washington is, in a sense, a strategical point. Its

government is the National Government, and its affairs, therefore, concern the whole country. What is needed to put a stop to a discussion which has run to scandalous lengths, and has not been free from scandalous implication, is a thorough investigation by an independent committee, who will divest the matters at issue of all personal relations.

Prettiness and

If most artists consider only the beautiful, and Ugliness some accentuate more or less mendaciously their æsthetic ideal, a certain group of American painters go to the opposite extreme. Declaring that the true observer of life, whether an artist or not, must consider all sides of life, they often emphasize the unlovely side. Sometimes, it is true,

through the unlovely to the lovely. Where this appeal to the imagination is made, the new movement will be lasting; where it is not, the movement may be but fleeting. At all events, it is interesting to observe the work of certain so-called "secessionists," as shown at the National Arts Club, New York City. For the first time we have adequate opportunity of judging their merits and demerits, and, indeed, the varying phases of an individual's output, because of the commendable system of grouping the canvases of each exhibitor. In general, the pictures shown do credit to the plan of the National Arts Club directors in emulating the protest and accomplishment of Whistler two decades ago, when he gathered examples of modern work in an exhibition in London; from it sprang the International Society of Painters, Sculptors, and Gravers. While a goodly number of names are represented in the present exhibition, the chief interest lies in the work of the extremists. It is not altogether surprising that juries have consistently rejected some of their canvases. If earlier artists went to the extreme of prettiness and sentimentality, these, at times, certainly go to the extreme of ugliness. Most of their portraits are interesting because of their character of expression rather than because of their expression of character. We have, for example, the bitumen effects of Mr. Glackens, whose still life

is so much better than his real life, and of Mr. Luks, whose specialty is the blunt and the forceful if flatly painted delineation of slum life; the cold impression, despite the warm colors used, of Miss Cassatt's brilliant but unpoetic portraits of the French bourgeoisie, and, in contrast, the rich figure-pieces of Mr. Henri; Mr. Boss's interesting portrait and the yet more interesting ones by Mr. Sloan, perhaps the most noteworthy among the "new" painters; finally, less remarkable for technique than for imagination, is the impressive portrait of Beethoven by Mr. Steichen, apparently the most many-sided of any exhibitor; for at this exhibition we see his work in portraiture, landscape, and photography; the members of the PhotoSecession appropriately show their charming work alongside the painters' canvases. In landscape we may contrast the peculiar achievements of the two Dabos with Mr. Kent's bold headlands and Mr. Mygatt's or Mrs. Coman's quiet pastures, above all with Mr. Lawson's "Morningside Heights," much of which might have been painted with a knife; its "staccato" touch, however, brings a striking realization of atmosphere. Altogether the exhibition is a noteworthy expression of independence as well as of rebellious irregularity in art.

these corporations and to the men who have managed them. The managers have often been men of the highest moral character, of the first intellectual ability, of indomitable courage, and with a genius for enterprise. They have sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed; but their successes have often been purchased at the price of great selfsacrifice, and brought great prosperity to others who have sacrificed nothing. The Union Pacific Railway, the Northern Pacific Railway, the Bell Telephone Company, the United States Steel Company, the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railway, afford dramatic illustrations of these truths. To guard against the danger of monopoly which great corporations have been supposed to involve, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed-an act loosely drawn, difficult to interpret, and unsatisfactory in its results. This law and the subsequent Elkins Act have been allowed to remain a dead letter. To enforce them now, particularly to punish past infractions of them, works great practical injustice.

The shareholders of these corporations have not sinned, yet they must suffer, because, as we are told, juries will not punish the officers and therefore they punish the corporations. The logic is bad; one cannot punish the son because the father has done wrong." Mr. Higginson's conclusion is that only future

Mr. Henry Lee Higginson contributes to the January Atlantic Monthly an interesting article on "Justice to Corporations.' Mr. Higginson is well known both as a philanthropist and as a financier. His article is doubly entitled to consideration as a contribution to current discussion by a man eminent alike for business ability and for moral and intellectual culture, and as a representative of views current in a considerable and important section of the best American society. His article may be summarized as follows:

Corporations are essential factors in modern civilization, and have brought great benefits to the country. The extraordinary industrial development of the past hundred years is largely due to

and only the officials, not the stockholders. He thus states it:

Punish future violations of the laws by the corporations, but punish the officials and not the stockholders. If juries hesitate and fine the corporations, it is an act of great injustice; in short, it is an outrage. . . . Let bygones be bygones. Past offenses against laws which have not been diligently enforced may safely be regarded with leniency, for the offenders have perforce formed their habits of business long ago and have not believed that the Government really "meant it." Now they are sure that the Government "means it." The old Saturday night spanking for faults which the children may have committed without the knowledge of their parents has been given up. Let us begin anew, knowing that the corporations are to-day obeying the laws, and knowing also that the standards of honesty, honor, and fair dealing studied and are higher than in the last cenbetween man and man have been carefully tury. We live in a busy day, and so let us

busy ourselves with the future and try to fit our acts to the newer standards.

There is a great deal of truth in this article, and truth that needed to be said. But it is not all true and it is not the whole truth.

It is true that corporations are an essential factor in modern civilization. Perhaps the discovery that men can combine their capital in great industrial enterprises and share the profits has had as great and beneficial an influence on human welfare as the discovery of steam or electricity. But if steam-engines explode, society sees to it that they are put under control of licensed engineers; and if live overhead wires are perilous to life, they are put underground. So if the financial power which the corporation puts into the hands of a few men is used to the detriment of the many, society ought to take measures for self-protection. This is what society is now attempting to do. And in doing this its first duty is to compel the obedience of corporations to the law. It is idle for society to enact laws and then allow corporations, because they are useful, to set the laws at defiance. We do not believe in the wisdom of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act; but that is no reason why it should not be obeyed. We do not believe in our present protective tariff; but that is no reason why we should cheat the customs.

And there is only one way. of enforcing the law against disobedient corpor: tions-by fine, and by fines sufficiently heavy to make disobedience of law unprofitable. It is true that the franchise might be taken away and the corporation dissolved, but no one would advocate this form of capital punishment except for the most heinous offenses. Mr. Higginson has evidently performed very little jury service if he supposes that juries hesitate "between fines and imprisonment or between fining this or that individual. Juries do not determine whether the punishment shall be a fine imposed on the corporation or imprisonment inflicted on the official. That is determined by the terms of the law and the nature of the legal proceeding. Mr. Rockefeller cannot be sent to jail because the Standard Oil Company has been adjudged guilty

of illegal action. The courts have uniformly held that a man cannot be punished for a crime committed by his agent unless it be proved that he personally participated in the crime. The president of a railway can no more be sent to jail because a freight agent has granted a rebate than a woman can be sent to jail because her maid has stolen a jewel.

It is true that the great majority of corporations have been honestly managed, and their existence and operation have been of great benefit to the community; but it is also true that some of them have been dishonestly managed and their existence and operation have been a detriment to the community. Most of the generals in Washington's army were patriots, but that is no reason why Benedict Arnold should be allowed to escape. During all the early part of his career Benedict Arnold was a brave and honest soldier; but that is no reason why, when he turned traitor, he should go unpunished. Some corporations have fallen into the hands of gamblers and the property of the investors squandered; some of them have been fraudulently managed and the investors robbed; some of them have been managed in the interest of the investors but made instruments of oppression in the community. Purely technical violations of law by innocent parties acting in actual ignorance of the law or under a misconstruction of a law difficult to construe should be permitted to become bygones; but deliberate, persistent, and flagrant violations of law should not be permitted to become bygones. We do not condone a train wrecker because other train wreckers have gone unpunished; that past railway wreckers have been allowed to go unpunished is no reason why present railway wreckers should go free.

Society has called into existence, in its creation of corporations, a new power. Like all power, it is beneficial if it is rightly used, and dangerous and perhaps disastrous if it is wrongly used. It is the duty of society to see that this power which it has created is used for the general welfare. To do this it must provide laws adequate for its regulation, and it must enforce those laws, whatever

suffering the enforcement involves. No suffering which law enforcement produces can equal the suffering which will be produced by allowing the spirit of lawlessness to go unchecked and acts of lawlessness to go unpunished. If innocent stockholders are allowed to profit by the lawless acts of the corporation, the lawless acts will be continued and the spirit of lawlessness will be encouraged. If the innocent stockholders suffer when the corporation becomes a lawbreaker, the innocent stockholders will combine with the rest of the community in insisting that corporations be law-abiding.

Co-operation, Not
Creed

We have received a letter from a correspondent who wonders how, if we believe in the divinity of Christ, we can advocate the admission of Unitarians to active membership in the Young Men's Christian Association. He says:

What troubles me is this: The only record

we have of Christ is the Gospel testimony, and that testimony speaks as clearly of his virgin birth and resurrection and of his miracles as it speaks of any other facts relating to them. He says: "I and my Father are one;""No one cometh to the Father but by me;" "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again." How, then, can you ask those who believe the Gospels through and through to permit others who deny the deity of Christ, deny the virgin birth-or, conversely, who refuse to believe in these great dignities of Christ-to associate as Christians?

In the Middle Ages the Church regarded those who did not believe in the standard interpretation of Christ's teaching as criminals, and demanded their punishment by the State; in the twentieth century some in the Church regard those who do not agree with the standard interpretation of Christ's teaching as sinners, and refuse to fellowship them. Religious persecution had its defense, if not its origin, in the first error; sectarianism has its defense, if not its origin, in the second error. The Baptist declares that Jesus Christ commanded adult baptism by immersion, and refuses church fellowship to those who do not

accept and obey that command; the Calvinist declares that Jesus Christ taught that no man could come to him except the Father draw him, that this involves predestination and election, and he formerly refused fellowship with those who did not accept predestination and election. Similarly, our correspondent declares that Jesus Christ taught his own deity, and refuses fellowship with those who do not accept his interpretation of Christ's teaching.

All this grows out of the fundamental notion that men must be agreed in opinion in order to co-operate in action. But it is not necessary to agree in opinion in order to co-operate in action. It is necessary to agree in purpose but not in opinion. Loyalty to Christ is not the same as loyalty to the standard teaching of the Church respecting Christ. Every disciple of Christ has a right to study Christ's teaching for himself and give his own interpretation. All that any disciple of Christ has a right to demand of his fellow-disciple is that he shall be loyal to his own understanding of the Master. This is the reason why we urge the admission into the Young Men's Christian Association of all Christians whatever their creed. We are ready to co-operate with the Catholic who believes that Christ founded the Church, and with the Congregationalist who believes. that Christ left his followers free to form their own churches; with the Baptist who believes that Christ taught adult immersion, and with the Pedo-Baptist who believes that Christ taught infant baptism; with the Calvinist who believes that Christ taught predestination, and with the Methodist who believes that Christ taught free will; with the Orthodox who believes that Christ taught that he and his Father are one, and with the Unitarian who believes that Christ taught that his Father is greater than he. short, we are willing to co-operate in Christ's work with any man who calls himself a follower of Christ, and who is working in the spirit of Christ to make this world a better and a happier world. Only unity of purpose with diversity of opinion can give a united church. Co operation, not creed, is the secret of church union,

In

The New Oxford

The words "the new Oxford" are disturbing to those who know and love the old Oxford, the Oxford not only of traditionalism, toryism, and reactionary impulses, but of vital scholarship, of literary inspiration, and of that broad and generous culture which has given English writing and the best Englishmen a singular ripeness and quality of mind. One has only to look at the portraits of a group of English university preachers to be aware of a certain fineness of strength, refinement of energy, elevation and dignity which are the very flower of genuine education. The problem at Oxford is to increase the efficiency of the University, to make a more fruitful use of its great resources, to bring it more closely in touch with the needs of the time and the aspirations of young men of the twentieth century, without sacrificing the accumulation of eight hundred years of devotion to the intellectual life and an atmosphere which is in itself a liberal education. That it has been the home of lost causes does not involve a sweeping condemnation; for a lost cause a devotion to a family, to a name, to a principle, or to a movementwhich has involved forgetfulness of selfinterest, of comfort and money, is far better than the indifference to the higher things, the dullness of emotion, the lack of sentiment, which bar some men alike from the dangers and from the rewards of adherence to causes and principles.

But Oxford has been the mother of progressive movements as well as of reactionary ones; of causes that have won or are winning as well as of causes that are lost. It was in Oxford that Wyclif read the Bible with the eye and the mind of a modern man; it was out of Oxford that Methodism went with the open Bible and the soul of fire in the dusty and prosaic religious life of the middle of the eighteenth century; it was in Oxford that the Tractarian movement had its rise, with its devoutness of spirit, its love of symbolism, its reassertion of the integrity and independence of the Church, mixed with other and less noble elements. There is something to be said, too, for a university which con

serves the spirit of the past. Nothing could be more superficial from the educational point of view, or dry up more rapidly the sources of educational inspiration, than a perfectly "up-to-date school," as some people understand upto-dateness: a school which has nothing to do with yesterday and therefore nothing to do with to-morrow, but concerns itself only with fitting men to do the work of this particular hour. For manual, mechanical, and practical training there is a great and increasing demand, which ought to be met and is being met on all sides in a normal and rational way-a demand which marks another great stage of educational development; but an education which trains men only to make a living, and does not fit them to make a life, would sap the very sources of inspiration and make a monotonous workshop of the modern world. The present is built on the past; and one of the chief uses of education is to show a man where the world of his time stands. The mischief of the half-educated man lies in his inability to make that adjustment. Every important idea must be seen in perspective; taken out of its relations it is as mischievous as the once prevalent idea that business is an activity by itself, without moral relationships. It is the function of a university not only to keep abreast of the times, but to keep in touch with that part of the past which lives in to-day, supplies its deeper impulses, and is the key to its greater

movements.

One danger of modern education, under the pressure of the demand for skilled workmen, is the sacrifice of culture, with its breadth and ripeness and depth of knowledge, to discipline and instruction. In this age of trained men no sane person will question for a moment the necessity of the disciplined brain and hand. To them is already committed most of the work of the day, and to them, and to the nation that develops them, the future belongs. Nor will any sane man question the necessity of the education that gives knowledge; for to-day, not only in science, but in practical affairs, the fruits of prosperity are in the hands of those who can pluck them from the tree of knowledge. But