Windows on the S By Malcolm W. Davis OMEBODY once remarked that a composite picture of the human race would show a man carrying an ax to a grindstone. Evidently, axes to grind are going to be numerous at the conference for signature of Secretary Kellogg's joint treaty renouncing war, now scheduled to take place in Paris. With acceptances in hand from all the Powers and the smaller nations invited to adhere a total of fifteen, and with the possibility that Spain may make a sixteenth-the gathering is to be one of the most ceremonial and impressive since the signing of the Peace Treaty of Versailles. Gustav Stresemann, Foreign Minister of Germany, would like to take advantage of this reassuring occasion, it is reported, to secure the assent of France to evacuation of another section of the Rhineland area now held by the armies of occupation as a guaranty fulfillment of the Versailles Treaty. There seems to be a fair prospect that the French Government will be ready for the step, which would be in line with the present policy of Franco-German conciliation and commercial co-operation. Premier Poincaré, of France, would like at the same time to obtain an agreement from the United States for reconsideration of the question of war debts. That is a step which would certainly have the sympathy of all the European nations who desire a revision of the present plan for dealing with both debts and reparations. S. Parker Gilbert, the American Agent-General for Reparation Payments, has himself indicated in his latest reports his opinion that some such readjustment will be necessary. But Secretary Mellon, of the Treasury Department, whom M. Poincaré approached in Paris, gave the French statesman no encouragement. Both he and Mr. Kellogg would naturally have it in mind that the consent of the Senate may be difficult enough to secure for the treaty against war alone-which many insurgent Senators regard as a scheme to involve the United States in the affairs of Europe-without tying to it the political dynamite of the war debts controversy. Undoubtedly, it would have been more exact if the prophet had foretold that the nations should beat their swords into axes. E (C) Keystone THE PARISIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION President Doumergue reviews the French troops at the Arc de Triomphe on Bastile Day, July 14, the anniversary of the French Revolution AMONN DE VALERA has proved him self the Jack-in-the-box of the Irish Free State Parliament. Incorrigible and irrepressible, the unreconciled republican leader has made his acceptance of a seat in the Dail Eireann the basis for unremitting attack on the Government of mitting attack on the Government of President Cosgrave. He has attempted to get the requirement for the oath of allegiance to the King abolished, tried to insist that debate should be in Gaelic, and generally opposed the administrative arrangements set up by the peace treaty with England. Most recently he has sought a national referendum on the principles involved in his contest with the majority party. Cosgrave, having consistently beaten De Valera in Parliament, took up the last challenge by moving to have the initiative and referendum clauses in the Free State Constitution repealed. De Valera adroitly demanded a referendum on the question of their repeal. Cosgrave then declared the motion a matter of public safety and not subject to referendum. The Government's motion was passed. Checkmated, De Valera had to subside temporarily. It might be argued that refusal to submit the issue to the voters showed lack of confidence on the part of the Government in the public support it could command. But the Irish people have given no sign of dissatisfaction with the steps that the President has taken. chie pressed by the United State SANDINO, the Nicaraguan rebel c marines, has taken refuge in Hondur so Secretary Wilbur, of the Navy partment, has informed President C idge and armed resistance is over and the prospect for a quiet election of a new President, under marine sup sion, is excellent. The question no whether the Nicaraguan Conservatives can agree on a candidate; so far they have been unable to unite behind any one to oppose the Liberal leader, Genera Moncada. But the confidence of foreign future, in any event, is reflected in the interests in a comparatively untrou purchase by the Foshay Company New York of the electric, ice, and water services of the capital city of Mana gua. J Out of Sight, Out of Mind OHN DOE breaks a law. What do we do with him? Very likely nothing. We are notoriously indifferent to lawbreaking and the lawbreaker. But if we catch him at his lawbreaking and decide to do something, we accuse him; and then we wait for the cumbersome machinery of the law to act. If we convict him, we bundle him off to prison and forget him. We put him where we do not see him because we do not like to think of him. We leave him under the arbitrary authority of wardens and guards. We do not know what those who have him in their power are doing to him. Perhaps they are doing nothing except keeping him under lock and key and letting him brood. Perhaps they are putting him to some kind of work. We do not know, and most of us do not care. There are a hundred thousand of such John, or Jane, Does in prison in this country. Many of them (nearly half of all those in New York State Prison at Sing Sing, for example) are under twenty-five years of age. Like people outside of Io prison, they differ among themselves. Some of them, in mind if not in age, are still mere children. Some of them are physically or mentally sick. Some of them have been twisted and made crooked by conditions under which they have grown up. Some of them are ignorant-ignorant of the law, of the difference between the attitude of the lawless and the lawabiding. Some of them have been caught by the trap of bad laws. Some of them are deliberate and ingenious enemies of society. We do make some distinctions. We take into consideration the fact that an offense is the offender's first. We put some offenders in reformatories rather than in prisons. We hold out to some the hope of release on probation. But on the whole we treat them all as if they belonged to a class apart. We herd them together out of sight, and try to keep them out of mind. Could we do anything more certain to create enemies of society? Presumably, those who are thus herded together are at labor. Labor for what? To what end? Partly to make it easier for those in charge of them to control them. Men occupied are more easily managed than men idle. One way of putting them to work is to lease their labor as one would lease the labor of horses or of slaves. This leasing system has been discredited and almost wholly abandoned. In his articles in The Outlook for last week and the week before Nels Anderson has described two other systems-the contract system and the State-use system. In all these systems the benefit of the labor of the prisoners has gone to the lessee or the contractor or the State-seldom to the prisoners. During the past generation a good deal has been done to make prison labor more humane, but very little to make it of benefit to those who labor. What we are manufacturing in our prisons is chiefly enmity to society, and we shall continue to manufacture that until we change our stupid system of making prisons places for the punishment of consequences and for oblivion. For our own safety, if not for the sake of the men and women in prison, it would be well for us to get over our distaste for thinking about prison problems. The hundred thousand who are now in prison-mostly men, and largely young men-are, with few exceptions, going to be released and join society again. Whether they come out better or worse depends upon what we permit to be done to them while they are there. And what we do now will determine what will happen to those children from six to fifteen years of age who, in an other decade, are going to take their places behind the bars. Preacher Politicians HEIR names have become almost as well known as Hoover and Smith. They have had much more to say. They are Bishops Cannon, Du Bose, Mouzon, and Moore, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. History may hear of them. They have notified their senior, Bishop Warren A. Candler, that they will not be silenced by the cry that they are "bringing the Church into politics." If this country is to see a clerical party, these men seem to be ready for leadership. Bishop Candler's advice to the cloth was, in effect: "Preach Christ and him crucified. Do not preach politics. You have no commission to preach politics. The divinity of the Church is never more strikingly displayed than when it holds on its ever straightforward way in the midst of worldly commotions." Bishop Candler looked for precedents and found them in the years 1865 to 1894. The defiant bishops refer pointedly to those dates. They imply that their senior speaks for another day and another Church. They find their precedents in the history of the Church between 1910 and 1926. They cite General Conference resolutions demanding prohibition by Constitutional amendment, rejoicing at its enactment, calling for the branding of all violators as criminals, urging the election of officials, from revenue agent to President, "who believe in enforcement, not only because prohibition is the law, but because it ought to be the law." So, say these four, "we notify the defenders and advocates of the liquor traffic that the moral forces of this country will not be driven from the field by the cry that they are 'bringing the Church into politics,' because they are opposing the election to the Presidency of a man whose personal and official record brand him as the outstanding enemy of National prohibition, for which great reform we have ourselves, not only as citizens but as Christian ministers, been working for years." Disregarding for the moment the questionable definition of liquor regulation as a purely moral issue, this is a declaration of immense significance. A battle has been joined which event now is involving other denominations. These four churchmen have broken with a tradition of their faith and with an American tradition. They are perfectly willing to put the Church into politics. It is there already, so far as they are concerned. This being so, certain other honest attitudes may be expected of them, and of their like-minded confrères. They will no longer raise the cry of "Church and State" against other sects. They will scrupulously tell their flocks when their sermons are inspired by the Holy Bible and when by the latest campaign development. And they will ask to be known, not as men of God, but as preacher politicians. Public Utilities and the Political Campaign A N outstanding issue in this Presidential campaign will be the control and ownership of public utilities, particularly of water power. Like prohibition, the issue is clear-cut, not in the party platforms, but in the party leadership. Herbert Hoover is on record for the private development of public resources and public service. Alfred E. Smith stands for State ownership with private distribution. It seems certain that the Governor will deal with the subject in his notification speech, and that he will devote to it one or more of his main campaign addresses. It is likely that Mr. Hoover will do the same. The Federal Trade Commission, before it adjourned until September, illuminated the importance of public utilities, which touch nearly every home, and the methods of the power lobby. Its inquiries have already revealed that, as one of the propagandists observed, the utilities have used every avenue to public opinion save sky-writing. In the employment of two former United States Senators, two former Governors, high party officials, and minor functionaries; in the defeat of State legislation and the steering of legislation at Washington, it has manifested its political influence. By means of the radio, the press, and the public platform it has reached millions of Americans. More, it has undertaken to eliminate "bad" text-books from the public schools, and to substitute books favorable to its cause. It has flooded high schools with bulletins and pamphlets. It has paid generous fees to freelance writers and college professors. It It has financed "research" work. Without question its campaign has been the costliest and most extensive ever known in this country. Let us agree at the outset that the "power trust," so called, is entitled to put its case before the public as persuasively as it can, within legitimate. bounds. The economic conclusions which it advances are held by many able and honest men. Its securities are widely held. Insurance companies and banks have invested about two billion dollars in them, and five million individuals, it is estimated, hold its stocks and bonds. More than one-eighth of our National wealth takes this form, and no one will dispute the right of so large an enterprise to put its views be By SILAS BENT The voter is more than likely to hear about public utilities during the coming campaign. It is an issue that can be dealt with, as Mr. Bent points out, without religious or racial prejudice; and, even more fortunately for honest discussion, the two major candidates are unusually well informed and able to express positive and divergent opinions about it. fore Congress and the electorate. The term "power trust" is a misnomer, due to the fact that attention has been focused on the hydroelectric possibilities of Muscle Shoals and Boulder Dam. The "trust" includes water-works and gas companies, as well as electrical con cerns. HAT has shocked the public conᏔ science in the revelations concerning the "trust" are the methods it has adopted. It has undertaken to pollute the sources of education, with the frank avowal that students in schools and colleges influence their parents and are the voters of the future. Let me summarize, then, what has been done in this direction. In establishing contacts with public schools and colleges three organizations have taken the lead: the National Electric Light Association, the American Gas Association, and the American Electric Railway Association. Last year these three formed a publicity bureau, headed by George B. Cortelyou, former Chairman of the Republican National Committee and former Republican Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Cortelyou says this committee represents corporations with invested capital of more than seventeen billions. It co-operates with twenty-eight special propaganda bureaus, covering the whole United States, and with other committees of State and regional utility associations. Back in 1922 the Illinois Bureau on "public utility information" began tampering with text-books. This organization had been founded three years earlier by Samuel Insull, whose contribution to Republican campaign funds in Illinois caused a National scandal. Bernard Mullaney, the director of the Illings Bureau, testified that 105 text-books were inspected, and listed as "good," "fair," "unfair," and "bad." Mullaney said some of them were "no less than poisonous." For example, "American Citizenship," by Charles A. Beard, who collaborated with Mrs. Beard in writing "The Rise of American Civilization," and who is one of this country's most distinguished political scientists, arous the wrath of Messrs. Insull and Mullaney. Specific objection was made to three passages. One was to the effect that sentiment was growing in favor municipal ownership because of the po litical activities of the utilities, and b cause of the large profits in monopolisti franchises. Another passage suggested that in the future refrigeration would regarded as a public problem, and asserted that some cities have established their own ice plants, to protect the health of children. The third passage read: Like all other institutions, the [civic institutions] may be used against public welfare, as well as for it. An instance of the way in which public opinion may be "manufac tured" for private purposes was afforded not long ago in great city where the extension of street car lines was under discussion. A street car company which was interested in gaining a certain franchise selected a prominent politician and gave him about a quarter of a million dollars to "accelerate public sentiment." He organized a Citizens' Association in the part of the city involved in the affair, and got up public meetings in favor of the company's demands, incidentally disbursing a large sum money among influential persons. I the midst of so much clamor for his attention, it is not surprising that th citizen is sometimes bewildered and unable to form sound judgments. THE In HE Illinois Bureau distributed its memorandum to power executives in all parts of the United States, and late in 1924 the National Electric Lighting Association took up the matter in a serious way. Surveys were made in New York, Pennsylvania, the Carolinas, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Co rado. Chairman Hanlon, of the Iowa Committee, wrote: "We took up with each manager the question of getting th information to the proper parties in order that the text-books which gave the matter correctly might be adopted in place of the Socialistic ones. We have had great deal of success in getting this matter corrected." The directors in the Carolinas and in Missouri urged that these activities be kept "confidential," as "it would be most unwise to give this work any publicity." Scores of such letters are on file with the Commission. Howard C. Hill, author of "Community Life and Civic Problems," was induced to remove from that text-book a reference to Samuel Insull's 1926 campaign contributions. He refused to make other suggested changes. In Rochester, New York, Edward Hungerford's "The Story of the Public Utilities" was published co-operatively by the Board of Education and the public utilities. In at least two instances arrangements were made with the publishers of text-books. A Pennsylvania official wrote that J. B. Winston & Co., of Philadelphia, had "agreed to avoid pitfalls in the future;" and representatives of Ginn & Co. agreed to submit its text-books for a visa. A letter written in regard to this by a minor official to M. L. Aylesworth, then managing director of the National Electric Lighting Association, but now President of the National Broadcasting Company, said: "I feel that we have made a good start in getting the largest book publishing house Ginn & Co.], which printed twelve million books last year, with us, which will be a tremendous leverage on any other house should op- generalizations such as these full of holes. position occur, which I doubt." TONS of pamphlets have been distrib uted to high school and eighthgrade students; among others, to 636 Illinois high schools, 289 in New England, 350 in Texas, 690 in Missouri. Ohio schools used 200,000 copies of one pamphlet. This material praised public utilities and denounced Government ownership or control. ownership or control. At one stage of the Commission's inquiry denial was made that the pamphlets and bulletins were one-sided. Let me quote, by way of answer, from the "Public Utilities Catechism," ten thousand copies of which were planted in the Connecticut high schools alone. Question 21 asks whether communities ever "furnish public service themselves, instead of permitting private companies to do it." The answer, after conceding the facts about postal service, ash and garbage collection, and street cleaning, continues: Municipalities, however, seldom attempt the operation of the more progressive public services, such as the furnishing of light, power, gas, water, communications and transportation, unless the community is too small for a private company to operate at a profit. . . . Statistics have proven that the cost of living in cities which operate their own utilities is much higher than in cities where public service is entrusted to private enterprise regulated by the public's servants on the Commission. Any competent economist can shoot They are fed to American school-children as gospel. We shall see presently that public utilities in Ontario, under Government ownership, supply electric light for domestic use at about five cents per kilowatt-hour less than it costs, under private ownership, across the border in New York State. Yet the circulars is sued by State propagandists with utility pamphlets asserted that they were merely informative. "No advertising," said the Nebraska circular, "no propaganda." Local utility officials used their influence with school board members and school principals to have "bad" books thrown out and "good" books substituted in the public schools. The avowed purpose was to present to children the utility view and none other. In West Virginia, Missouri, and Kansas such booklets were actually recommended by State educational officials. In Colorado special material was supplied for a debate on Boulder Dam, and the N. E. L. A. issued for general distribution a pamphlet on that subject. Books were supplied to school libraries. Speakers voicing the "trust's" view-point addressed thousands of high school assemblies. The director of the Rocky Mountain propaganda bureau reported that "hardly any limitation is placed upon our talks." $62,000 was paid in three years for research under, approved professors, and to Harvard University $33,000. In the circumstances it was a little disconcerting to have Professor William Z. Ripley, of Harvard, denouncing holding companies and exposing the methods by which stockholders of utilities were deprived of control. But, wrote the chairman of the Public Relations Section: "If occasionally a professor breaks loose on stuff that does not please us, let us bear in mind always that he may not be expressing the consensus of opinion of his colleagues. The one suggestion I would offer is that the professor is most amenable to inspiration. If we can be sure that we have got hold, with reference to our industry, of the will of Jehovah, perhaps we may also play the part of Jehovah in putting into the mouth of the particular Balaam, whom we are asking to go forth, something of the truth which we would like, which we have a right to expect to have, prophesied." To Northwestern University the utilities gave $62,500, to the University of Michigan more than $12,000, to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology $3,000, to Johns Hopkins $5,000. How much was paid to the University of Colorado has not appeared; but on March 28, 1928, after the investigation began, one of the propagandists wrote to F. R. B. Hellems, Acting President of the institution: "It is unfortunate that the newspaper headlines tended to impugn the good name of the University. . . . It is regretted that the effort of your school to prepare students for public utility work should be branded as pernicious propaganda." A T least one of the agents of private ownership paid attention also to schools of journalism. Embryo editors were well worth "educating"-that being a favorite word with the lobby. Samuel E. Boney, formerly city editor of Cyrus H. K. Curtis's Philadelphia "Ledger," lectured to students in journalism about (of all subjects!) newspaper ethics. Judge Robert Emmett Healy, questioning him for the Commission, asked: "I should say that is entirely at the disposition of the newspaper itself." Schools of journalism were targets along with other colleges. Various methods were adopted to win their favor. Summer employment was provided for instructors and students interested in utility problems. Tours of inspection were arranged through plants. Social gatherings were held. At the University of Illinois special scholarships were provided. A teacher at the University of Georgia was sent to Harvard to take post-graduate work, in order that he might set up a course in public utilities at Georgia. Efforts were made to inaugurate similar courses elsewhere. Speakers made hundreds of addresses to college audiences. Mr. Aylesworth proposed that small retainers be paid to professors to enlist their sympathetic interest. And A. W. Robertson, a Pittsburgh utility executive, said: "The thought occurs to me that the reason why so many educators are more or less hostile to big business is in many cases due to the fact that they themselves are not successful in a business way. There ought to be some way in which educators could be better paid. It would certainly help to cure at least some of their mental bias." To more than a dozen professors the retainers took the form of fees for lectures, presenting the "trust's” view-point. tures, presenting the "trust's" view-point. Others were paid to take up research work, among them Professor E. A. Stewart, of the University of Minnesota Agricultural College; Professor A. H. Ford, of the University of Iowa; Professor W. C. Duvall, of the University of Colorado; and Professor John E. Waggoner, of Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College. A Boulder Dam "factfinding" committee was promoted by the propagandists, and included university men, some of them from Colorado. At a meeting of the American Federation of Teachers in Chicago Dr. John A. "Do you claim to know something Lapp, head of the Department of Social about newspaper ethics?" "I do." "Do you think it is ethical for a newspaper to produce in its editorial columns an editorial prepared by a director of a power company bureau such as yours?" "I would hesitate to say what would Sciences at Marquette University, Milwaukee, denounced the work of the power lobby in advocating private ownership in the schools and colleges, while pretending to be impartial; and the National Educational Association has adopted resolutions of the same tenor. Said J. W. Crabtree, secretary: "This attempt to bring into the schools semi political matter has stirred the Nation to an appreciation of the importance of maintaining the integrity of our educa tional institutions, which exist to serve all the people regardless of party, creed or economic status. Nothing else arouses the indignation of all the people so much as an attempt to use the schools for commercial and political purposes." WHEN, THEN, through the machinations of the efficient central power lobby in Washington, the inquiry demanded by Senator Thomas J. Walsh was shifted from the Senate itself to the Federal Trade Commission, there was a general notion that nothing would come of it. The Federal Trade Commission ha been made over by Mr. Coolidge from a somewhat rambunctious body into mild-mannered agency of sweetness and light. This may account (although it a poor excuse) for the failure of the press during the earlier sessions to report what was being done. Two years earlier the Hearst papers had printed a series of stories exposing the "power trust," and they gave an adequate coverage from the first of the hearings. A handful of courageous dailies followed suit presently, and by their example forced reluctant competitors into line Even so, only a fraction of what has been uncovered has been divulged to the general public. Two former Senators, who have th courtesy of the Senate floor (I have seen one of them buttonhole a former colleague and lead him away to a cloakroom), were in the employ of the Washington power lobby. Irvine L. Lenroo who has received at least two fees of $10,000 each from the "trust," appeare as chief counsel for it. He was chief counsel for Mr. Hoover in the contests over delegates to the Republican Na tional Convention. Senator Charles S. Thomas, of Colorado, a Bryan Dem crat, also appeared on behalf of th lobby. The Washington lobby include 274 utility attorneys, a few of them Democrats. It has been shown that 100 utility executives contributed in 1924 to Calvin Coolidge's campaign fund, nine to the John W. Davis fund, none to the Robert F. La Follette fund. Merritt Meechem, former Governor New Mexico, who ostensibly represente that State at a conference of Governors on Boulder Dam, actually was employed to "report" the proceedings for the elec trical interests; his law firm got a fee $5,000; and Charles A. Brough, a for |