176

bined with others to commit acts amounting to a conspiracy, the truth or falseness of the allegation must be decided by a judge without a jury and that the person arrested is dealt with for contempt of court in disobeying the court's orders and not for having committed acts against the statute criminal law.

Meanwhile the strike of the railway shopmen is growing feebler, and it is quite probable that actual prosecution under the injunction will not take place.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

A LIVING CHURCH

If

the Federal Reserve Board had not been in existence during the great European war, we should unquestionably have had a currency panic and a financial crisis in this country more disastrous than the three or four which struck the country down during the life of the National Banking Act.

In spite of the fact that the richest manufacturer in the United States is reported to have said that "history is al! bunk," it is a good plan occasionally to recall history in discussing current political questions. The Federal Reserve System works so well, so smoothly, and seems so well established, that the man who fears its destruction by political partisanship is called an alarmist. But the United States Bank, which a hundred years ago saved the country from the same kind of economic disaster from which we have been saved in the last eight years by the Federal Reserve Bank, was destroyed by political partisanship. History shows over and over again that what has been done once can be done a second time. Perhaps a National banking system might be devised which would be more efficient, more just, and more uniform in its social benefits than the Federal Reserve System, but so far it has proved itself to be the best system that this country has ever had, and better than those of many other civilized countries. Nevertheless, it is being attacked and the center of attack is the Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, Mr. W. P. G. Harding. His term has expired, and the President has not yet made an appointment to fill the vacancy. Governor Harding is at present holding the office until his successor is appointed. We think it may be said that the soundest and wisest financial advisers of the Presicent are urging his reappointment. Indeed, the name of one alone of his sponsors is enough to carry the confidence of country. We refer to Senator Carter

No man knows more about the

MONG the more important communions in America, the Protestant Episcopal Church is by no means the largest, but it exerts an influence out of proportion to its size. Its triennial Convention which recently had its session in Portland, Oregon, was an event of wide public interest. The proceedings of that Convention were reported in the daily press as news of importance to readers not affiliated with that Church or any Church.

One reason for this is the strategic position which the Protestant Episcopal Church holds in certain centers of population. Another reason is its place in Perthe early history of the Nation. haps the chief reason, however, is the fact that it is what may be called a root communion.

are

It is the same reason that explains the influence of such relatively small countries as Ireland and Scotland. Numerically, the Irish of Ireland almost negligible in the total mass of humanity; but they constitute a root nationality, they are a parent stock. Millions of people, therefore, who are not Irish at all are concerned with what is happening in Ireland as they would not be with the doings of four or five million people without history or common origin who might happen to inhabit the same island.

Somewhat similarly, the Protestant Episcopal Church constitutes a parent stock in Christian faith and practice. The symbol of its ancestorhood is the Book of Common Prayer. Though it is the authoritative compendium of Episcopal liturgy, it is in practice the heritage of as many Protestant bodies as may wish to claim it. Its collects are the Its common possession of all churches. phraseology has entered into the language almost as definitely as that of the English Bible. The fact that the Protestant Episcopal Church is in a peculiar sense the trustee for this treasury of worship and literature is an indication of the special responsibility that rests upon that Church and the public concern in its actions.

action of the recent Convention at Portland was the revision which it made of the Book of Common Prayer. In The Outlook for September 6 the Rev. Dr. E. C. Chorley, Historiographer of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in special correspondence gave an account of some of the more important changes recommended by the commission appointed nine years ago for that purpose. It is not practicable here to refer to all these revisions. A number of the changes which were adopted merely record a change in point of view of the Church as a whole toward certain customs and in certain human relationships. For example, it is no longer contrary to the rubrics of the Church to read the burial service over the body of an unbaptized person or of a suicide. This is not to be interpreted as a change in the conscience of the Church, but rather a greater charity and sympathy. The new prayers that have been added are also a record of a new understanding of fraternity, as is indicated by the prayers for social justice and for missions. It is significant of a changing view of the marriage relation that simultaneously with the removal of the word "obey" from the vow of the wife there is added a prayer for fruitfulness in marriage.

In a despatch from Portland to the New York "Tribune" Dr. Chorley emphasizes the action of the Church in reference to modern social problems, and he quotes from the pastoral address of the bishops to the members of the Church which lays upon corporations and labor unions alike the duty of public service. The pastoral indicates also an understanding of what is commonly regarded as the modern revolt of young people and a sympathy with certain objectives of that revolt-the "readiness and determination to level social distinctions and forego social privilege, a larger freedom of social habits and a real democracy of thought and activity." and with this expression of sympathy and understanding the pastoral later couples a warning against the lack of parental control and leadership.

THE EPISCOpal churcH AND
SOCIAL PROBLEMS

THE Episcopal Church has not relaxed

its rule against authorizing the Episcopal clergy to perform a marriage ceremony for a person divorced except for the innocent party in case of infidelity. On the contrary, it has made that rule more stringent by making it now a cause for excommunication for persons so remarried.

should be carried on only in co-operation with qualified physicians.

On social problems, in addition to the declaration of the bishops on the relations between capital and labor placing human rights above property rights, declaring a living wage as the first charge on industry, for a substitution of co-operation for competition, for providing the worker with a voice in the control of industry so far as determining his conditions of work and life, the Episcopal Church has expressed its views on social questions as recorded by Dr. Chorley in his despatch to the "Tribune" in these words:

The Convention has gone on record against the marriage of defectives, mob violence in all its forms, secret organizations which stir up strife between man and man and set race against race and creed against creed. Raffles and gambling in any form are condemned as methods of raising money for churches and charitable institutions, obedience to the Constitution of the United States, especially concerning prohibition, was urged, and war as a means of settling disputes between nations was declared to be unchristian. A joint commission has been appointed to organize men's institutes, and the Convention has de

(For result see picture below) clared itself as favoring free speech, free discussion of social problems, and a free press.

Whatever opinions one may have concerning the actions of the Church as thus recorded, it is evident that the Protestant Episcopal Church, while it holds fast the form of sound words, is also pressing forward with life and vigor.

MAINTAINING THE NAVY'S EFFICIENCY

D

ESPITE decreases in appropriations, limiting the amount of battle practice which the United States Navy can carry out, officials in charge are doing everything possible to keep the efficiency of the Navy up to a high standard; and they believe that their efforts are meeting with success. Like a prudent housewife whose allowance has been diminished, they are obliged to "cut corners" and to economize to keep their house in order, so that if "visitors" should ever come they would be able to "receive" them.

In times of peace battle practice is the life of the Navy. Without it, officers and men alike would soon lose, not only the

efficiency, but also the morale and the

unity of action without which they would be helpless if ever faced by a real enemy. Unless the officers and men of the Navy keep fit by almost constant practice every vessel in the American fleet might as well be scrapped at once.

There has been no apparent lessening of efficiency in the American Navy, as far as can be observed from what can be made known without betraying secrets to foreign Powers, in regard to the latest battle practice operations of various units of the Navy. These show that the man behind the American gun still has a good eye, and that if he were ever called upon again to defend the rights of mankind he would give a rattling good account of himself. He can pepper targets full of holes, although the mark he is aiming at is many miles away-just how far and just what percentage of shots he makes is only for the eyes of a few Navy officials. The officials of some foreign navies would like to know also; it would be very interesting to compare it exactly with the marksmanship of their crack gunners; but the Navy guards this information zealously.

In a general way, however, they allow

something to be shown-even with pictures-of what the Navy is doing in the way of battle practice. They believe that the people of the Nation are entitled to know what the Navy is doing to keep fit for any emergency to which it might be called.

While the Navy is being cramped at the present time in the amount of battle practice of various kinds in which it can indulge, nevertheless by combining different operations, performing as much as possible in the way of actual maneuver and drill within a given steaming radius, the officers responsible for this part of the Navy's welfare-and a most important part-are succeeding in getting good results. The efficiency of the Navy, it is believed, is being maintained; at least, it is holding its own and not going back.

How long it could do this, however, under skimped appropriations is a question which cannot be answered with any degree of definiteness. It seems to be certain, from the best opinion available on the subject, that a few years of such limited battle practice would begin to tell on the general morale and efficiency of the Navy. With considerable periods of lying idle in port, with some portions of battle practice conducted while lying at anchor instead of "riding the waves" as in genuine battle practice, and with insufficient drill at times perhaps along certain lines of ship operation, there will of necessity come a time when there will be a drop from the high mark of efficiency which the American Navy has maintained up to the present time.

The American Navy is being limited in size; it must not be limited in its ever-ready attempts to excel its own previous records in efficiency.

BOYS AND BOOKS

T

HE recent occurrence of the hundredth anniversary of the birthday of "Oliver Optic" (W. T. Adams) has raised the question whether the taste of boys in reading has improved or deteriorated in the last fifty years. We doubt if there has been much change. Then, as now, the boy cared more for the substance of the story than for the manner of its telling. Then, as now, parents were glad to have their boys interested in reasonably wholesome tales like those then poured forth in such profusion by Oliver Optic and Horatio Alger, later by Henty, and in our day by the football authors of whom Barbour is king, if thereby they could be kept from sensational trash. Beadle's dime novels and the similar Munro ries of that day were no more objecable than the Cap. Collier and Old

The

Sleuth tales a generation later. hundred stories built up mechanically by Oliver Optic were perfectly proper-he was a school-teacher and an advocate of moral training. If they had no literary grace or quality and if their boy heroes were marvels of ability beyond belief, this did not interfere with their popularity.

Emphatically, with the boy "the plot's the thing;" he has inherited the prehistoric taste of primitive man for the story of adventure and action. It was the tale, as distinguished from the novel, that Sir Philip Sidney had in mind when he spoke of "that which holdeth children from play." But for the boy fifty years ago who could see that there was something in the books of J. T. Trowbridge that simply didn't exist in the Oliver Optic stories-that, for instance, Trowbridge's Civil War tales, "Cudjo's Cave" and "The Drummer Boy," had imagination and character depiction, whereas Oliver Optic's "Young Lieutenant" and the long series of military and naval heroes that followed were perfectly wooden-for that boy there was a certainty that literary taste could be developed.

What the boy needs is for some onelibrarian, teacher, parent, or, better yet, other boys of a taste a little more advanced than his own-to steer him at just the right time from the pithless, machine-made story to the book that retains the excitement of adventure and yet has the glow of imagination. If it is something that he hasn't been told to read as an educational duty, so much the better. "Ivanhoe," for instance, has pretty nearly been killed for boys in just that way. And if the boy finds it himself, that is the best of all. Happy is the chap who has discovered by his own browsing that there is something more lively and satisfying than the conventional "juvenile" about school life in Stevenson's "Kidnapped" or Kipling's "Kim" and "Captains Courageous," in Reade's "Cloister and the Hearth" or Blackmore's "Lorna Doone."

A few weeks ago Mr. H. V. Coryell wrote in our Book Table on "What Books Do Boys Recommend to Each Other?" and described interesting experiments in finding the answer. He found that he could get boys to discuss informally the books they read, to tell other boys the books they like and why, and the very process improved their own taste. Moreover, "the honest recommendation of one boy to another carries far more weight than the recommendation of any grown-up; for boys, through sad experience, have come to suspect us adults of wishing to force 'dry old stuff' down their throats." The boys' opinions just after they read the books were

divided into those about books no boy should miss, fairly worth-while books, and "time killers;" and the first classification was certainly creditable and reasonably free from the curse of most such lists (especially those made by librarians), that of including just what the makers think every one expects them to put in.

We hope that librarians who deal with children will follow out Mr. Coryell's idea; it is educative to the boys as well as helpful in getting a first-hand view of what boys will read instead of what they ought to read. It would be particularly interesting to apply this test to new books; in the flood of holiday books the librarian feels safer in following the good old road and recommending "Hans Brinker; or, The Silver Skates" and "Treasure Island" than in picking out and recommending from among the new books those that will entrance and stir by true imaginative value.

GOING TO COLLEGE

P

RESIDENT HOPKINS, of Dartmouth College, has stirred the daily newspapers by asserting in an address to the student body of his institution that too many men are going to college. It is quite natural that just at this time the newspapers should be greatly exercised by the proposal to limit the number of college undergraduates. The football season has just opened. The sport page has grown to be one of the most important pages of American journalism. If college undergraduates are to be limited to those who are really after an education, and who regard athletics as an incident-a pleasant and important incident, it is true, but nevertheless an incident of college life-what is going to become of the sporting page during October and November?

It will not do, however, to treat the discussion with too much levity, for President Hopkins spoke in all seriousness, and what he said is worthy of serious consideration. He regards a college education, which is always given, not at the expense of the student, but at the expense of taxpayers in State institutions and of private donors in en. dowed institutions, as "definitely a privilege and not at all a universal right." He believes that some way must be found to "define the individuals who shall make up the group to whom, in justice to the public good, the privilege shall be extended and to specify those from whom the privilege should be withheld." He does not wish this privilege to be "restricted to any class defined by the accident of birth, or by the fortui

wealth."

The social detriment which results from the overcrowding of cur colleges is twofold. Many of those who just succeed in getting their academic degrees would have had a better training and a better development of their gifts or capacities by a working experience in the actual problems of life; and there are now so many men thronging university and college class and lecture rooms that the students who have a special capacity for this kind of training are hampered by the "slackening of pace due to the presence of men indifferent or wanting in capacity."

It may seem paradoxical to assert that many of these difficulties would disappear if more men would go to college. The trouble is that too many boys are sent there, either because it is the proper thing socially, or because their parents want them to be educated along lines for which they have no bent. Going to college is a very different thing from being sent to college. The boy who goes to college because he is determined to get a training in literature, or history, or philosophy, or languages, or mathe matics, or chemistry, usually makes good himself, and makes his professors happy. We doubt if increasing the severity of entrance examinations would be of much benefit. Cramming methods can usually overcome such an obstacle. What will come nearer solving the difficulty is a rigorous weeding out of those who are indifferent or incompetent. This is the method which is pursued at Oxford and Cambridge and at the French universities. In France a university student does not recite his les sons. He hears lectures; he is told what to read on a particular subject; and then he is left with occasional consultation with professors or preceptors to dig his way into the subject himself. If he passes a very stiff examination, he gets his degree; if he fails to pass this stiff examination, he retires.

The ultimate purpose of education is not, we take it, to fill a boy's head with facts like an encyclopædia, but to train him to be able to see the proper relations of the facts which he discovers in his own experience, and to be able to make the right deductions from those relations.

There should be some institutions where men who have the intelligence and capacity can be trained to be leaders of their generation in actual life. Just as the high school is an outgrowth of the grammar school, so there might well be some high colleges into which only those should be received who are especially fit for the finest kind of training.

C

ONGRESS has succeeded in conglomerating the Tariff Bill. The latest protectionist measure which has just gone into effect consists of a long and complicated series of clauses, imposing arbitrary duties with very little coherence or relation to one another. This must be the conclusion of even the layman who looks at Mr. Bell's interesting article on another page. The new law has probably less actual corruption and more illogical selfishness at the back of it than any tariff law passed since the days of that great protagonist of protection, Henry Clay. What the President regards as a great contribution to the science of tariff-making-we mean the clause which empowers the President and the Tariff Commission to change specific duties when they think the good of the country demands it-is not a solution, it is an experiment, and it may not work. The motive which inspired this provision was excellent, but the method is dubious. There are two serious objections to giving the President executive power with regard to the amount of duty to be paid on any particular commodity, and these objections cannot be airily dismissed.

The first objection is that it is bad for the President. The Chief Magistrate of the United States now has burdens of decision and duty which are overwhelming. To subject him to the appeals of importers who believe they are unjustly treated or of manufacturers who think they ought to have more profits is to add a new burden upon him which may prove intolerable. The second objection is that it is bad for American industry. The greatest danger to commerce is uncertainty. An importer buys a bill of goods in Europe. After he has paid his duties, and before he has been able to dispose of his stock, the President by executive order lowers the tariff tax on this particular commodity. His competitors are greatly benefited at his expense. Unless the President is most wisely advised and acts with great wisdom, importation under these circumstances may well be not only perplexing but dangerous. And the difficulties awaiting the importer await also the protected manufacturer. A manufacturer sends out his winter line of gloves at a price contracted by him on the basis of a certain duty. After his contracts are made, the President raises this duty and his competitors can, therefore, ask a higher price. Any provision which makes possible inconsiderate meddling with single and particular schedules of a tariff act and the consequent upsetting of the commercial equilibrium is a great peril to the coun

Whatever tariff changes are made should be based on facts ascertained after investigation in the interest of the whole public and should be put into effect only after full hearings and due notice of the time of change.

Perhaps in this stage the present bill in this particular is as good as could be expected; but its fundamental defect is twofold: It does not provide sufficient safeguards against sudden and unreasonable changes; and at the same time it limits the administrative action of the President and the Tariff Commission by a set of schedules that are unscientific and conglomerate.

One thing in the bill that can be wholeheartedly commended is the defeat of the clause proposing that duties should be levied on an arbitrary and artificial American valuation. Let us at least be reasonable and logical. We either ought to prohibit all importations, or those importations which we do permit to come into the country should be treated with common fairness.

Let it not be supposed that the editors of The Outlook have suddenly become theoretical free-traders. We have not. In this stage of civilization protective measures of various kinds are needed in National life, but they should be framed at least with the best intelligence of which the country is capable. A protective tariff law has three reasons for its existence. Its first object is to raise revenue; its second object is to promote and maintain manufacturing, not for the personal profit of the manufacturer, but for the general public prosperity; and third, it should be so framed as to protect its wage-workers from the cheaper wages or the lower standards of living prevalent in other countries, if there are any such. Five hundred members of Congress, pulled and hauled by conflicting interests, can hardly be expected to give these three functions of a rightly made tariff bill proper consideration. Some day, we suppose, the United States will have a scientific and impartial body which will deal with the tariff with an authority equal in extent and analogous in kind to that of the Inter-State Commerce Commission, as an adminsitrative agent of Congress, and an arm of the Executive. Such a body will be able to take the tariff out of politics, for by its investigations it will be able to ascertain and effect such duties as are necessary for revenue, for a subsidy of general manufacturing, and for the maintenance of the highest possible standards of living for wage-workers. Until something of this kind is done, we shall continue to have conglomerations and hodgepodges as the products of tariff legislation.