Page 700 Wide world THE GRANDEUR THAT WAS ROME An Unknown Temple, Unearthed in the Heart of the Modern City, Under the Direction of Premier Mussolini most wholly delightful. In a cable to the "New York Times" the professor is quoted as declaring that the supposedly unfortunate people "have no fear, no despair," but only a "serious calm, a profound resignation, an extreme intellectual lucidity and a rapid succession of ideas." Best of all, there is often "marvelous music" and the sensation of passing through a wonderful sky with rosy clouds." Professor Heim has questioned many Alpinists and guides who have fallen down precipices in obtaining his information. In addition, he has had personal experience, for he once fell off a cliff himself. There was no pain until hours afterwards although he heard his head striking the rocks as he landed. He, too, "heard delicious music." He has not yet questioned parachute jumpers regarding this music of the spheres. Perhaps only accidental falls are thus made lovely. Basest Ingratitude RICHARD BURDON HALDANE, twice Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, died in Scotland on August 19. His great services to his country were most unjustly clouded by suspicion as to his attitude toward Germany during the war. He was sent to Germany in 1906 by Sir Edward Grey, then at the head of the English Foreign Office, to study the relations between the two countries and to do his best to harmonize them. Again in 1912, and again under Sir Edward Grey's direction, he visited Germany with the same general object and to pave the way if possible for a satisfactory understanding between Germany and England as to the race in naval armaments which Germany was then forcing energetically. a Naturally, after the outbreak of the war Lord Haldane looked at the international situation in broad way. Quite without cause sensational journals and hot-headed individuals assumed that he was pro-German and cited the fact that he had once called Germany his "spiritual home." Intelligent persons never believed that Lord Haldane was at any time or in any way anything but a sincere patriot. Lloyd George immediately after Lord Haldane's death, declared: "I always thought that he was very harshly treated, and in fact treated with the basest ingratitude." That England at large learned to honor Viscount Haldane is shown by the fact that he for the second time held the office of Lord Chancellor, under the Labor Ministry, eight years after the war was over. Lord Haldane has been aptly described as a statesman-scholar. He was also in a reasonable way an advocate of better education and of better treatment of labor in Great Britain. Acme The Outlook Concerning Parades ONE of the Southern dry leaders recently said to a member of The Outlook staff: "Governor Smith has asked us to come to Albany so that he can parade us across the stage, we have to go." Senator Glass, of Virginia, author of the enforcement plank in the Houston platform, went and paraded but refused to accept a speaking part. Josephus Daniels, of North Carolina, went and paraded and talked. He was quoted at the Asheville Conference as urging support of Smith and the election of a Congress that would oppose Smith. On his way to Albany, Mr. Daniels announced that he would support Smith and that he believed that the South would be safely Democratic. Senator George of Georgia, most tenacious of the die hards at Houston, went. Senator Walsh, of Montana went and came away. His support of the nominee was all along undoubted. If the purpose of having the arid gentl men in Albany was simply to parade them, there is room for two opinions as the wisdom of the move. They have added little to the Smith show. But the purpose was something more. Governor Smith may be no surer now than he was before of the support of the gentlemen who visited him. But those gentlemen know more of the fiber of the Democratic candidate. A VOLCANO IN THE DUTCH EAST INDIES Whose Eruption, Followed by an Earthquake, Killed 1000 People The August 29, 1928 Page 701 Hoover and Prohibition MR Editorials R. HOOVER will have to speak more plainly and explicitly about prohibition than he spoke in his Address of Acceptance if he is to be understood. On farm relief his statement is as clear as such a statement in a speech of acceptance can be expected to be. On foreign policy he has made his position clear on the three points he mentioned-keeping out of the League of Nations, the promotion of the settlement of international disputes by arbitration, and the maintenance of a strong navy. On one other salient issue the relation of Government to giant power and public utility corporations-he has said that he will speak later. But on prohibition he has made, so far as anything he has said indicates, the only statement that he intends to make. And that statement is not adequate. Concerning the Eighteenth Amendment itself his position is clear. He does not believe in the repeal of the Amendment. But his position is not clear concerning the Volstead Act. Nobody expects to see the Eighteenth Amendment soon if ever repealed or even superseded by another amendment. What change in the law or the methods of enforcement would constitute nullification is a matter of opinion. Let us therefore dismiss as not pertinent now the question of either repealing or nullifying the Eighteenth Amendment. There are three distinct forms of enactment of prohibition. One consists of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibiting the importation, manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors as beverages and giving concurrent power of enforcement to both the nation and the States. Another and distinct prohibition enactment consists of the Volstead Act, which is the Federal law defining, describing in detail, and penalizing the violations of prohibition. The Volstead Act is not in any sense a part of the Eighteenth Amendment. It simply purports to carry out the purpose of the Eighteenth Amendment and is subject to change by Congress. The third form of prohibition enactment consists of the State laws on the subject, which of course apply only within the respective States and supplement for those States the Federal Act. After his confession of faith in prohibition as a “great social and economic experiment," which "must be worked out constructively," the crucial sentences in Mr. Hoover's Acceptance Address are these three: "Common sense compels us to realize that grave abuses have occurred-which must be remedied. An organized searching investigation of fact and causes can alone determine the wise method of correcting them. . . . Modification of the enforcement laws which would permit that which the Constitution forbids is nullification." Does Mr. Hoover mean by this to propose an official and legally empowered commission to study the abuses that have grown up around prohibition, to report its findings and to make recommendations? If so, he should say so. he should say what he does mean. Of course his words may be interpreted as meaning that he will let things drift and let If not, the "organized searching investigation" take its chance with private initiative. If that is all he means, he has contributed nothing to the remedying of acknowledged abuses. If he means more than that, the people are entitled to know how much more. What "abuses" does Mr. Hoover refer to in connection with prohibition? Does he mean by them the lawlessness engendered by disregard of the prohibition laws? Does he mean bribery and corruption? Does he have in mind any infringement upon the liberty of the individual or any invasion of the rights of privacy? Does Mr. Hoover think that any of those abuses are due, or even may be due, to the severity of the Volstead Act? The Volstead Act avows a different object from that of the Eighteenth Amendment. The Eighteenth Amendment says nothing about the use of intoxicating liquors as beverages. Its purpose is distinctly stated to be the prevention of the importation, manufacture, sale, and transportation of them. The Volstead Act, on the other hand, distinctly says that its purpose shall be interpreted with a view to preventing the use of them. If such an investigation as Mr. Hoover refers to should establish the fact that the Volstead Act goes beyond the intent of the Eighteenth Amendment or contains definitions or makes restrictions that are not necessary for the purpose of the Eighteenth Amendment, would Mr. Hoover use his influence to make the Volstead Act less extreme? Some interpret his sentence about modification as implying that any modification toward less severity would amount to nullification. Others interpret that sentence to mean that only such modification as would permit what the Constitution forbids would be nullification. In either case he should amplify and clarify his statement. He should let the country know whether he thinks the bars of the Volstead Act could be let down at all without violating the spirit and purpose of the Amendment. If he thinks that the spirit and purpose of the Amendment can be furthered by letting down the bars he should say so plainly. In declaring his purpose to enforce prohibition Mr. Hoover says nothing about the cost of enforcement. He took pains to state what he thought about the cost of farm relief. That is because he believes in farm relief and therefore believes that it is worth what it will cost. Does he believe in prohibition sufficiently to recommend the appropriation of enough money to make prohibition enforcement effective? Nullification Mr. Hoover defines as "modification of the enforcement laws which would permit that which the Constitution forbids." Nullification as a party policy is, we think, indefensible. But what would constitute nullification is a question on which each candidate has a right to be heard and, we think, one on which he should speak clearly. As long as a candidate does not speak clearly, voters are likely to understand him to mean one thing when he really means something different. And that, too, like nullification, is indefensible. The Editors Page 702 The Outlook S Foreign Opinion ◄ ECRETARY KELLOGG is find ing that there are at least as many versions of the meaning of his international pledge to give up fighting as Hoover has encountered in the varied interpretations of his views on the national pledge to give up drinking. And in the endeavor to get his treaty through the Senate, after its signature by fifteen nations at Paris, Mr. Kellogg will encounter the same sort of public demand that he make clear exactly what the Department of State conceives it to mean and how it affects American foreign relations. To say that it does not alter our foreign policies evidently is not enough. Eminent American authorities, at the Williamstown Institute of Politics and elsewhere, consider that it does. And one of them summed up one aspect of the argument in a neat phrase by saying that the treaty sets up for the first time a legal sanction for the only kind of war which any modern nation ever professes to wage-war in self-defense. They also assert that it both obligates the United States morally to take action regarding wars in other parts of the world and also modifies our foreign policies. That, obviously, is the way in which many other nations regard the treaty. For instance, Costa Rica has asked the League of Nations for an interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. American statesmen certainly would hold that there is just one place in which to seek for an authentic interpretationnamely, Washington. Yet the influential and well-informed "Journal de Geneve," at the capital of the League in Geneva, Switzerland, comments that the Kellogg treaty-if it means anything-means the death of the Monroe doctrine, and that its principles were so understood and intended by their original advocate, Senator Borah, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Says this Swiss paper: "The Monroe Doctrine was justifiable at the time when it was promulgated, when the independence of the American continents was menaced by European states. The doctrine is no longer justified, for if this independ By MALCOLM W. DAVIS ence is still threatened, it is only so threatened by the United States. North Americans feel this in a vague manner themselves. Those capable of thinking politically (sic!) believe the doctrine no longer necessary to their freedom of action-that their strength is sufficient to guard this, and that the doctrine remains but to obstruct their policies in many cases." Abandonment of the Monroe Doctrine is the logical conclusion to be drawn from the text of the pact, contends the "Journal": "The Monroe Doctrine demands in its application, if not war, at least a menace of war. But the thing forbidden can not be used as a threat." The paper discusses in the same way the British reservations to the agreement against war, which have been called a Monroe Doctrine for the Empire. If Mr. Kellogg and Senator Borah have any idea of renunciation of the Monroe Doctrine, they certainly have given the public no hint that it has understood of such an intent-and we shall be in for an endurance contest in Congressional oratory. But, of course, any American knows that a war over the Monroe Doctrine would be a defensive war; and so far as the treaty is concerned, that is probably that. A s for other points, the semi-official "Temps" of Paris takes occasion to welcome President Coolidge's statement that the Kellogg treaty does not justify radical limitation of armaments for self-defense. And it associates with him the First Lord of the British Admiralty, W. C. Bridgman. "In certain quarters in other countries," says the "Temps," "an effort is being made to produce illusions which may dangerously mislead public opinion. . . . The compact against war has no direct relation to questions of national defense. . . . It is plain that the American President considers the anti-war compact one thing and disarmament another.... We all know that in disarmament we can only advance by small These are remarks directed across the frontiers to Germany and Italy, and probably, to Hungary as well. But a few days later, the "Temps" took pains to greet the visit of the German Foreign Minister, Dr. Stresemann, to Paris to sign the treaty, observing: "It marks a new stage on the road of reconciliation and friendliness. In spite of all the difficulties which still are to be faced, in spite of all the problems which still must be settled, this visit demonstrates how greatly Europe has changed -how, little by little, since the month of August, 1924, when the Dawes Plan was accepted, the political atmosphere of the continent has altered for the better." Only Soviet Russia-not invited to Paris to be one of the original signatories of the treaty and left to adhere later if she choose-is disgruntled over the whole affair. The official "Izvestia" of Moscow charges that this is an intentional move to delay Russian participation. Until the first fifteen sig natories ratify the compact, it argues, several years may elapse, and meanwhile "the nations will be divided into two categories-the clean and the un clean. The clean will be the participants in the compact and the unclean the non-participants-South America Spain, Turkey, the Scandinavian coun tries, the Balkan countries, and Lithu ania." tions for joining the compact brin out still more obviously the desire of the participants not to admit the Sovi Union and disclose the anti-Soviet edge of the celebrated treaty to outlaw war. August 29, 1928 A What the Country Is Thinking S the curtain rose play we call the Mr. Hoover's Speech Page 703 farm issue be clarified. Mr. Hoover is against the very principle of the Presidential Campaign the central fig- By ERNEST HAMLIN ABBOTT equalization fee. Governor Smith is ure on the stage was Herbert Hoover. And his were the opening lines. If you should try to form an idea of what he said by reading the press comment upon it you would get something like this: Mr. Hoover spoke as a representative American constructive genius, but of practical genius there was in his speech not a sign. He came out as an avowed partisan, but his words were not the glorification of party but the announcement of a philosophy of public service. There was in his speech no doubt, no evasion, no attempt to be neutral; still, it should be added, on the two chief issues it was elusive, vague, and anything but constructive. On farm relief he seemed to be rather groping but started in the right direction, at the same time he had surrendered to the organized agrarians. He had no plan for farm relief, but his farm plan was definite. He almost grabbed Smith's prohibition plank, but made it easy for Smith to appeal to the country on the wet issue. His speech was a prohibition straddle, yet he did come out pretty strongly on the dry side; and on this subject was concise, positive, unqualified; indeed, even those who disagree with him in this must acknowledge that he rose to fine heights. and was unequivocal and courageous. There was nothing in what he said that had a trace of Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, or Roosevelt; yet there was chord of idealism in it that reminds one of some Wilson doctrines, and except for the Wilson State papers nothing of the kind for a generation has been better. In short, Mr. Hoover's Speech of Acceptance was specific, uninspired, direct, trite, and forceful. From these comments, which I quote almost word for word, I infer that as a rule Democrats are against the Republican candidate, while Republicans are for him. One Southern editor calls Mr. Hoover's pronouncement that of a high pressure salesman. If it was, there is certainly in the editorial offices of the country a great deal of sales resistance. Yet there are signs that political sales resistance is breaking down. Some editors are actually saying that there a is not much difference between the There are some words that seem to At the same time the St. Louis I will make the issue clear. Similarly there is a demand in the newspapers of the country that the against the fee but apparently in favor of the principle. The Baltimore "Sun" says that Governor Smith is on dangerous ground. Before this is read Governor Smith will have discussed the farm problem; but it is this question which public opinion, as represented in the newspapers, will want answered. There is one other question that is going to interest increasingly the people of the central and far West-and that is the waterway from the Lakes to the Atlantic. The "Rocky Mountain News," one of the liberally-minded newspapers in the Scripps-Howard chain, says that New York City and New York State are opposed to the St. Lawrence waterway "because they fear it might interfere with the traffic of the New York port." Mr. Hoover is committed to it. The West wants that water way-an international route. That is one of the issues that a part, at least, of the country is thinking about. And it is thinking about Tammany. I have found in the press no sympathy for Dr. Straton and his sort of attack on Governor Smith. The pros pect of a debate between this famous fundamentalist and the forceful Governor of New York has been anticipated I am afraid vainly-as another Tunney-Heeney fight, with the doctor in the rôle of Heeney. But Tammany has a bad name and yet has been praised by the Governor. Some newspapers— not supporting Smith-have explained that other city machines have at times been as bad as Tammany at its worst. Yet the doubt remains. There is no tendency, so far as I can see, to ascribe to Governor Smith the character that has been fastened on Tammany itself. William Allen White's charges got surprisingly little sympathetic attention in the press. His retraction, in fact, got But yet the country is thinking about Tammany; and the tiger figures in cartoons. more. There seems as yet little interest in the big question of power control, and still less in what the New York "Telegram" calls the deadly dull but important issue of the tariff. And so the country awaits what Governor Smith has to say. Page 704 The Outlook S The Stolen Baby EVERAL years ago, a little girl in a big city was adopted by a wo man who had no children of her own. Perhaps, as she grew older, the child was haunted by a baby she could not remember a little baby without parents. For by the time she was nine years old the little girl found herself very much troubled by her need for a baby. When she was little, dolls had been all very well. A child of three, or five, or even seven, may be fooled into thinking that dolls are enough. But now that she was nine, she knew better. Dolls are a lie. You look at them and let yourself pretend. The way their little dresses fall about bare kneesthe way their little round heads are bent and their arms are held out to youhurts you somewhere, with joy. The little girl would close her eyes and swallow, for the hurt of looking at them. But she knew better. They would never move at all. They would never look at her. Much worse-if she snatched them up wildly to hold as closely as she needed-they were hard and ungiving. "I want a live meat baby," she would say desperately, and put them down. For a long time she had hoped and trusted that the Power that managed such things would send her a sister. She watched the household narrowly. For years and years she had watched, but there was never a pleasant undercurrent of excitement such as she had noticed in other families, no silent language of looks, raised eyebrows and strangely shaken heads; no day of disorder and importance and wonder. Never a baby. Now that she was nine, she would soon be grown up, and grown up people have different feelings. She knew. She had felt those feelings all around her, like waves. Or like emptiness. They acted busy and important over babies, or else they paid no attention to them. She, herself, wanted to touch and hold a baby. She had never seen them trying not to cry from the curious tight happiness that squeezed your stomach. when you pressed your cheek into a baby's neck. After nine, she would probably never feel this way again. From the Life By IBBY HALL The child needed no companion when she went for her daily walks. The big city that lay around her was an old and well worn story. She never went very far from home, for she had no need to. The rest of the city was all alike. It was on a summer's afternoon that the child of nine started her usual round. The stores first-though she knew them by heart. She walked slowly. The green grass and blue water would wait for her in the Park. She had plenty of time to see what might be new in the windows. The windows held the same things they had always held. It made her feel tired and weary just to look at them. She wanted something that would make her feel as light as airas though she could dance around the world on tiptoe. She wanted something alive to play with. In front of one of the stores, she lifted her eyes and there in front of her was a baby. She stared at it quite steadily for a few moments without moving. It might have come right out of the air into that crowded street, in answer to her wish. It might be a miracle. The little girl shut her eyes and opened them again very quickly. Yes, she was still there, in front of Woolworth's five and ten cent store. She drew a great breath and looked again at the baby. The baby was in a carriage and the carriage was standing close to the store window. It wasn't a very small baby, nor a big one. Not a year old yet, she was sure. It was turning its head about and crying softly. The little girl bent over the baby, and the baby stopped crying and stared at her. Its eyes were full of tears but it stared right through them. It was hers. It was hers for the taking. She felt sure of it. If she should push it a little way down the street, and no one spoke sharply to her -that would be proof. She tried pushing the carriage, a few steps only; then she waited. But no one appeared. People jostled past the little girl with the baby carriage and never noticed her-the baby began to cry again, so she pushed it a little further. By the time she reached the crossing her knees were weak and shak ing and she could hardly breathe. In no time at all she had reached the Park -she had found a tree-she was lifting the baby, her baby, out of its carriage. She held the baby close to her, in the first still moment, and could have died of happiness. It was warm and living against her body, and pushed its little knees into her stomach. The grass beneath the tree was soft and shaded. She slid down carefully and settled the baby on her lap. She knew it was a little girl; it was so gentle and pretty. They looked candidly into each other's eyes. They had a secret. For a time, they played together with the leaf shadows that fell around them-with the sun on the water-with the great things on wheels that rolled past the Park. Then the baby began to cry. It was all right at first. The little girl rocked her in her arms, she pointed all out all the funny things, she sang the songs she could remember. But the crying wouldn't stop-something dreadful must be the trouble. It was when the sobbing was most dreadful that a motor-car drew up suddenly nearby. Two men and a woman stepped out of it and the woman began running as though she were crazy, while the men followed slowly. The child's heart choked her all at once, for they were coming straight to the tree. Before the little girl knew what had happened, the woman had torn the baby from her arms. She was holding it even more tightly than the little girl had held it, and saying excited things over her shoulder to the two solemn men. car. The car at the curbstone was a police The two men were detectives. The little girl knew her city welll enough. But she held her ground i despair. She watched her baby, once again in its carriage, wheeled rapidly away from her. She stood up in front of the detectives and knew she would be arrested. But she refused to cry. She tried to answer all their questions-she tried to tell them why she had done it.- -When she finished, she thought her heart would break. The detectives were quiet men. They didn't say very much. Instead the drove her home and left her there. But what would she do now for a baby? |