certain of his fellow Catholics has been a fine example of political and moral courage.

But, although all the facts in this controversy have not yet been determined, the principles may be laid down on which action should be taken when the facts are known.

A democracy ought to sail an even course between autocracy and anarchy. The less police espionage we have in a democracy, the better. To say the less crime we have in a democracy the better is an equally self-evident statement. Russia is a country that well illustrates the evils of too much police espionage, too much governmental interference in the affairs of individuals. Mexico is a country that represents the evils of too little police supervision, too little protection of its citizens. by the Government. But it may be that police methods which would never be tolerated in a democracy when applied to innocent citizens are necessary and desirable in application to criminals or to those whom there is good reason to suspect of crime.

Between the course of Russia and the course of Mexico it ought to be possible for the United States to steer an intermediate course. Above all, we must remember one principle—that is, that if a representative of the people seems to be wielding a power arbitrarily or unjustly, the remedy is not to weaken that power with checks on the man holding it. The remedy is to put that power into the hands of a man responsible and capable of using it justly. In the present controversy it may be suggested that the question is not whether the police ought or ought not to have the privilege of tapping the telephone wires; the question is whether the police have used that power with good judg

ment.

THE BRANDEIS CASE

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday of last week reported, by a strict party vote of 10 to 8, a recommendation that the nomination of Mr. Louis D. Brandeis as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court be confirmed.

Support for the nomination of Mr. Brandeis has come from widely various sources. Notable among the expressions of approval is a letter sent to Senator Culberson, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, by Charles W. Eliot, President Emeritus of Harvard. This letter is particularly notable

for two reasons: first, because it is in contrast with the protest against Mr. Brandeis's confirmation signed by the present President of Harvard, Mr. Lowell; and, second, because in certain particulars Mr. Brandeis's views, as, for instance, with regard to trades unions, are known to be at odds with some of Mr. Eliot's opinions. Mr. Eliot writes as follows:

"I have known Mr. Louis D. Brandeis for forty years, and believe that I understand his capacities and his character. He was a distinguished student in the Harvard Law School in 1875-8. He possessed by nature a keen intelligence, quick and generous sympathies, a remarkable capacity for labor, and a character in which gentleness, courage, and joy in combat were intimately blended. His professional career has exhibited all these qualities, and with them much practical altru ism and public spirit. He has sometimes advocated measures or policies which did not commend themselves to me, but I have never questioned his honesty and sincerity or hist desire for justice. He has become a learned jurist.

"Under present circumstances I believe that the rejection by the Senate of his nomination to the Supreme Court would be a grave misfortune for the whole legal profession, the Court, all American business, and the country."

Our readers will find on another page an article on Mr. Brandeis by Mr. William Hard.

LAKE MOHONK

ARBITRATION CONFERENCE

The Lake Mohonk Conference is not a peace conference; it is a conference for international arbitration. The object is not primarily to secure peace, but to secure a better means of obtaining justice between nations than is furnished by war. The ultimate end is justice; peace is regarded as an important incident and a sure result from justice. This, repeatedly asserted by Albert K. Smiley, the founder of the Conference, was implied in the opening address of Mr. Daniel Smiley at the Conference held at Lake Mohonk, May 17, 18, and 19, and underlay all the discussions which occupied the attention of the Conference both morning and evening of the three days' session. It may be safely assumed that the entire membership believe that it is both desirable and practicable to substitute the appeal to reason for the appeal to force; if there were any disbelievers, they were not in evidence. The

differences elicited, and they were clearly defined and ably presented in the debates, concerned not the end to be sought but the means to be furnished.

Mr. James Brown Scott, who presided on Wednesday morning, in a great and scholarly address showed that the postal international union furnished a precedent for a judicial international union; its agreement to leave to arbitration all questions concerning postal matters which might arise demonstrated that such an agreement was not inconsistent with the sovereignty of the States and was not so regarded. To this extent he sustained the International League to Enforce Peace. But he considered that it was better, at least for the present, to trust to public opinion rather than to military power both to secure the fulfillment of their agreement by the members of that League and to enforce the decrees of the international court whenever such decree was made. Ex-President Taft, who presided during the remaining sessions, presented the plan of the League, and stated with great clearness the objections which have been made to it and the answers to these objections. This address was a fine specimen of the modern unoratorical style of oratory. It might have been an argument addressed to a university class or even to the Supreme Court of the United States; it was accompanied with very little gesture; it was wholly free from passion, though at times expressive of great earnestness of conviction; but its clarity of statement and its occasional touches of good-natured humor held the absorbed attention of the audience for something over an hour.

While the educational processes are necessary to induce the nations to substitute judicial proceedings for the wager of battle as a means of settling controversies between nations, what shall peace-loving nations do to maintain international justice and peace? This question divided the membership into two groups-one for disarmament, the other for military preparedness. The argument for disarmament was ably presented by Professor William I. Hull, of Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania, who maintained that the present war in Europe had been brought on by the preceding competition in building up great armaments, and who cited the century of peace between Great Britain and the United States, the result of a treaty of disarmament between the United States and Canada made in 1817, as the best possible

239

evidence that disarmament is the road to peace. The same view was presented on the following evening by Mr. W. J. Bryan, for whom, on his unexpected arrival, a place was made on the programme. His address, like that of Professor Hull's, assumed that armament leads to war and disarmament to peace. Rear-Admiral Austin M. Knight, in a carefully prepared paper, maintained that a deeper study of history made it clear that armaments were not a cause of war, but a consequence of the precedent war spirit, and that as long as nations obsessed by that spirit armed for purposes of aggression peaceful nations must arm for purposes of defense. In one paragraph of this remarkable paper-remarkable alike for its literary and its historical qualities-he showed that Great Britain's island character had never sufficed for her defense, that she had been invaded and subjugated repeatedly-as by the Romans, the Scandinavians, the Normans; that what had in later years saved her from invasion was a navy that made her mistress of the seas. The moral for the people of the United States it was easy to draw. No votes are taken in the Conference except on the platform at the close of the session, but so far as the heartiness and strength of the applause is any indication it seemed to be evident that the sentiment of the audience was at least four or five to one in favor of some form of military preparedness both to endow an international court with some form of power and to protect peaceful nations from aggression while waiting for the organization and established authority of such a court. We doubt whether any address was received with more enthu siastic applause than that of George Haven Putnam, who maintained that the United States ought to have protested against the invasion of Belgium and even now could and should unite with other neutral nations in opposing war upon non-combatants in violation both of humanity and of international law.

It is the constitution of the Lake Mohonk Conference, established by an unvaried tradition, to adopt nothing in its platform which cannot be adopted unanimously. The plat form, therefore, while it strongly reiterates its previous declaration in favor of a permanent court of arbitration, is silent on the question whether there should be any organization of or agreement among the Powers to enforce its decisions or whether enforce

ment should be left wholly to international public opinion. It therefore expressed neither approval nor disapproval of the platform of the International League to Enforce Peace.

The Outlook's views on the question, What is the true path to peace? are expressed in an editorial on another page.

THE "SAFETY FIRST SPECIAL"

For the education of the people of the interior States who live near the center of the country's population, Secretary Franklin K. Lane, of the Department of the Interior, and other Government officials have launched the "Safety First Special." Secretary Lane engaged the co-operation of President Daniel Willard, of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, and the twelve cars of the special and the engine that draws them were provided by that railway. After an inspection by President Wilson and the Cabinet, the special began its tour recently. Pictures of the interior of two of these cars appear on another page.

On board the special train are representatives of the army and navy, the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, Labor, Coast Defense, of the Weather Bureau, the Bureau of Mines, the Inter-State Commerce Commission, the American Red Cross, and the medical and engineering staff of the Government. These men live in two of the cars of the train; the other ten steel coaches contain the exhibits of this traveling museum. The capacity of the train is about one thousand sightseers an hour, and at many of the stops which it has already made nearly that rate of attendance has been maintained.

Visitors to the train are shown how the Coast Guard Service enforces the fishing and navigation laws, patrols the ocean against icebergs and derelicts, and how last year property valued at $11,000,000 and 1,507 lives were saved by these intrepid policemen of the sea.

Visitors also learn how the rescuers from the Bureau of Mines succor the victims of mine accidents; how the Weather Bureau makes its predictions which result in the saving of millions of dollars' worth of property annually; how the Locomotive Inspection Service of the Government has reduced the number of accidents due to the failure of locomotive boilers by fifty per cent in three years, how the men of the Forest Service protect 156,000,000 acres of the

National forests against fire and insect blight; and how the Department of Public Health protects the country against epidemics of typhoid fever, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and worse diseases.

But the exhibits are not confined entirely to the scope of the term "safety first," in the narrow sense in which it has come to be accepted. There is particular interest for the people of the country who visit this train now in learning how the army and the navy protect the country from foreign peril and how soldiers and sailors are themselves protected in war. The exhibits on the army and navy range all the way from the $12,000 Whitehead torpedo to a demonstration of the mask used to protect soldiers against poisonous gases and to moving pictures showing the men of the army and navy at work and at play.

Knowledge is the first protection against danger. On the thousands of people who will see it this museum on wheels, like the similar National Exposition of Safety and Sanitation in New York City lately, will have a vastly salutary effect by showing them how Americans ought to be prepared against war, disease, accident, and all other influences that endanger life and health.

BOOKER WASHINGTON'S
SUCCESSOR

The installation of Major Robert R. Moton as principal of the Tuskegee Institute, for which a distinguished company gathered from all parts of the country assembled on Thursday of last week, naturally renews the moral and historical bond between Hampton Institute and Tuskegee, the first the forerunner and, in a sense, parent of the second, for it was Hampton that made Booker Washington what he was, and it is now Hampton again that supplies his fit successor. As The Outlook has already said, the new principal of Tuskegee is a full-blooded Negro; his ancestry goes back to an African slave brought to this country in 1735. It was a fortunate day for Hampton, and for Tuskegee also, when as a young man Major Moton came directly under the influence of General Armstrong, of Hampton, was taught by him, was urged by him to remain at Hampton as a teacher, and thus was put into the line of opportunity and development which now has made him the head of Tuskegee.

Major Moton fitly chose as the title of his inaugural address the words " Co-operation