markable restraint. The Herrin affair was an exception, of which the unions bitterly repent. The 'United Mine Workers' Journal' said at the time, 'God knows the miners' union would not have had this thing happen for a million worlds.' And yet it is clear that, however steadfast the public's belief in trade-unionism on general principles, both the miners' and the railway unions have lost ground."

ARE THE UNIONS FOOLISH?

As to William Allen White's assertion that the trade unions were a parcel of fools in this contest, Mr. Roberts resists a natural temptation to recall that Mr. White recently inaugurated a new series of the "Martial Adventures of Henry and Me" by posting placards announcing his daily percentage of sympathy with the strikers and forcing "Henry" (Gov ernor Allen, of Kansas) to order his arrest for so doing. Disregarding all that, Mr. Roberts says: "On the whole. the press has been too busy reckoning with the seriousness of the strikes to consider their folly. Mr. White's remark was called forth by the 'cruelty and cowardice' with which trainmen 'left helpless people at Needles and Seligman on the desert in midsummer without food or shelter save the little mite the wayside towns provided.' Like the Herrin affair, this was an exceptional case. Like the Herrin affair, though in a lesser degree, it invited condemnation and received it."

THE STAND OF THE MANAGERS

Have the coal operators and the rail way managers been fair? Have they shown a readiness to compromise on reasonable terms? Not all of them, apparently. "Certain papers have thought they were a little too conscious that the strikers lacked the support of public opinion, a little too anxious to 'smash' unionism, and, in certain instances, too outspoken in their refusal to yield ground. Here is a clipping about President Loree, of the Delaware and Hudson, who said the other day: 'Reports that peace is coming in the railroad strike are all bunk. You can quote me as saying I stand where I have stood from the start, solidly against any surrender, and it would be a surrender on the part of the roads to give back to the strikers their seniority.' This same cutting tells us that 'W. W. Atterbury, of the Pennsylvania, said Mr. Loree expressed the views of all the Eastern roads. "He speaks for the bunch," were General Atterbury's words.' Moreover, Mr. Loree is said to have said, 'Peace talk has done the roads more harm than good.'"

HAS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
LOST GROUND?

Has private ownership of great public utilities been strengthened or weakened by the contest? "As concerns the coal industry," says Mr. Roberts, "a considerable proportion of the correspondents and editorial writers incline to favor

something like Nationalization, perhaps temporary, perhaps partial, though recognizing that when coal mining has once become the Nation's business it may stay so. One editorial writer remarks that as an independent, self-regulated industry, old King Coal is having his last chance.' However, I detect little, if any, enthusiasm in the effort to find a substitute for private ownership. The effort appears to spring from what might be called emergency opinion. Then, too, it is offset by an effort to keep us from 'seizing things.' How should we manage them after they were seized? You notice that the Grand Rapids 'News' remarks: "The Government represents all the people. If it takes control of the coal mines, it will not pay without question the wages the miners demand. Government would be concerned first of all in securing a steady supply of fue! for everybody. There would be no right to strike against wages or conditions then. Strikes would be little short of rebellion.' On those terms, where should we obtain miners? That difficulty is not overlooked by the press. In the case of the railways, you remember that the New York Times' said lately that, 'even if Congress should authorize the President to commandeer the roads, it could not give him power to compel men to work on them if they were unwilling to do so.""

The

HAS NATIONALIZATION GAINED?

The Outlook asks if the contest in the coal and railway industries has tended toward or away from Government ownership of public utilities. "Among the railway employees," says Mr. Roberts, "there is a pronounced leaning in that direction. "Times' puts it: "Their view is that Government operation of the railroads would permanently erect the unions into a privileged class. receiving higher wages than their fellows and given a political power which could be used to terrorize Congress and intimidate the Administration.' But popular opinion, as reflected by the press, is radically opposed to such a measure. People have not forgotten our war-time experience with Federal control, and, for that rea son partly, they oppose Government ownership of the coal mines. However, one recognizes a general demand, summed up in the sentence I have marked in this cutting from the New York 'Herald,' that the coal industry 'be put on a sound economic and solid business basis, under private ownership and management but at the same time under Government sanction and regulation. That nothing short of thorough reorganization can prevent trouble is fully appreciated. See what the 'Survey' has shown in an article signed by two Government geologists. That during the last thirty years the bituminous mines have lost three working days out of ten. That, although the most that has ever been burned or exported in a year is 550,000,000 tons,' our mines 'are

See how the New York

developed to an annual capacity of 750,000,000 tons'-the 'chief cause of intermittency.' As Messrs. Tryon and McKinney, the geologists I have quoted, tell us, 'the over-development is the result of free competition playing on a resource so widely distributed as to be almost a free gift of nature.' So it is not the managers' fault. 'Without concerted action of the kind forbidden by the anti-trust laws, they cannot control the economic forces that surround them.' And now let me read you a few paragraphs from an editorial in the New York 'World:'

one.

"'Bituminous mining in the United States hardly deserves the name of a business. It is a chaos, and a bloody Because of seasonal production and uneven demand, there are nearly twice as many men in mining villages as are needed. Because there are too many for the jobs on hand and because they are isolated from communities that might furnish other employment, the miners can't enforce their demands under normal conditions. With surplus labor keeping wages low, the pits will show a profit in a good year even when run without modern machinery.

""They are so run, and according to the Federal Trade Commission, they do show a fair profit. At the same time a majority of the men are poorly paid upon an annual income basis and often desperate. When they strike, they are met by the solid facts that there is not enough money for higher wages and that there are not enough orders to run more than sixty per cent of the mines. They are met also by the autocracy of the mine-guard system, established to handle desperate employees.

""There is no final solution except a complete reorganization of bituminous production. Until that is done it will be necessary to restrain both sides from violence in a dreary series of conflicts ever menacing civil warfare. One after another, strikes will recur, bringing violence with them if continued, so long as coal is mined in this country as it is mined now.'

"Have I made my point clear? What the people want is not Government ownership, either of railways or of coal mines, but successful, because scientific, Government regulation. They approve when such a paper as the San Antonio 'Express' declares that, coal being 'just as essential to National life as the transportation system, further Federal regu lation is inevitable.'"

MONOPOLIES OF MONEY AND MEN

The Outlook's question, "Has this contest tended toward or away from monopoly?" seems to Mr. Roberts somewhat vaguely worded. "You mean the One Big Union?" he asks. "And a corresponding unionization of capital? Then a fight between the two, with no mercy on the consumer? In that case, I may say that it is a question not at all widely discussed in the press. However, on it labor side, there are labor journal

deal with it more frankly than is usual, and they have been led to do so during the strikes, though not wholly because of them. Over the announcement of the Supreme Court's decision making. labor unions suable there was deep resentment. The New York 'Call,' a Socialist paper, termed this 'the most staggering blow ever aimed at the organized working class.' Though declaring it would be 'as futile as was the crucifixion of Christ,' the Minneapolis 'Labor Review' saw in it an 'attempt to abolish the unions.' The Seattle 'Union Record' said, 'It is pie for the direct actionist who preaches that Government is designed solely for the purpose of keeping the working class in a state of subjection to employers.' It was then that the Indianapolis 'Union' asserted: "The Reds and Bolsheviki will thrive on such decisions. They say triumphantly, "Didn't we tell you the courts were against the worker? Join the One Big Union and kick the bucket over. Seize everything." But observe. Even here the point is made indirectly. There is nothing like 'Who says so? We do!'"

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE
PEOPLE

Has the policy of the Government under this Administration shown weakness or strength in our Governmental structure? "There has been criticism of the President," says Mr. Roberts, "but not of our Governmental structure except by Socialists and Radicals. And when critics of the Administration assail Mr. Harding the Democratic New York "Times'-I had the cutting in my hand a moment ago, let me take it up againas I was saying, the New York Times' remarks: "Those who accuse him of hesitancy and weakness should in fairness point out what warrant of law he has for doing otherwise than he has done. The fault lies, not in him, but in the happy-go-lucky spirit in which Congress has permitted the country to drift into seeming helplessness in the pres

ence of a Nation-wide strike. There ought to be remedial and safeguarding legislation. But it is foolish in the extreme to fancy that this can be framed overnight or put into effect in a panicky state of mind.'"

THE CURE

This brings us squarely in front of The Outlook's concluding question: What legislation, if any, does the situation call for from Congress and the States? In reply, Mr. Roberts quotes the very general assertion that we must provide the Labor Board with "teeth." It has none whatever at present. The "New Republic," he reminds us, has been saying: "The law grants the Board no power to enforce its decrees. Public opinion is its only police, and publicity its only weapon of punishment." Also, he reads aloud from an editorial in the Philadelphia "Evening Public Ledger," which declares: "The Transportation Act is working badly, and in its labor provisions it is working very badly. The Labor Board which it created is based on the mistaken principle that the wages problem can be artificially segregated from the general financial problem. Experience has now confirmed what was freely predicted in 1920, that since wages are so large a part of costs, wage policies must be regulated by the authorities that regulate the other aspects of railway finance. The immediate trouble has arisen through failure to recognize this fact." When discussing the President's demand for legislation to make the Labor Board's decisions binding, Mr. Roberts takes up a clipping from the Philadelphia "Bulletin," which contends that what the Board should have, in order to prevent strikes, is "the power to compel arbitration of railroad labor disputes"--a concrete suggestion, but offset by the Norfolk "Ledger-Dispatch's" remark that "no decision of the Labor Board could compel a man to work."

The President demands "a National investigation of the coal industry, so as to provide constructive recommendations

for legislation to govern its conduct," and Mr. Roberts tells us that, while the Brooklyn "Eagle" predicts that "the factfinding commission will amount to nothing," a number of influential papers warmly approve. Among them is the Philadelphia "Public Ledger," which, so Mr. Roberts points out, believes that "the proper sort of commission would in the end do more than prevent labor troubles at the mines; it would put coal mining and distribution upon a scientific basis, and at the same time bring down the price of bituminous and anthracite coal."

But perhaps the most important step toward the prevention of strikes in both the coal and the railway industry has already been taken. Recalling once more that the Supreme Court's decision in the famous Coronado coal-strike case pronounced "such organizations suable in the Federal Courts for their acts" and declared that "funds accumulated to be expended in conducting strikes are subject to execution in suits for torts committed by such unions in strikes." Mr. Roberts quotes an attorney for the American Federation of Labor as admitting that, accordingly, if the railway unions strike, they will be liable under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for conspiracy in restraint of trade.

It is not surprising to find that Mr. Morris Hillquit calls the decision "a serious blow to organized labor," or that Senator La Follette complains, "It is most ominous in what it foreshadows.". From their point of view, both gentlemen are right. Labor has enjoyed special privileges hitherto. Under the Clayton Act it has been free to conspire in restraint of trade, whereas capital could not. At last we have arrived at something "ominous"-namely, one law for all. From a file of clippings Mr. Roberts selects an editorial that recently appeared in the Ohio "State Journal" and concludes with this brief but significant sentence: "If Government has the right to exercise control over organizations of capital, so has it over those of labor."

OR some time past the various parts of the Anglican Church have been engaged on a revision of the Book of Common Prayer. The work has been completed in the Canadian Church and is approaching completion in England and Scotland. The last revision of the Prayer-Book in the American Church was begun in 1880 and completed fifteen years later. In response to a widespread demand, the General Convention of 1913

appointed a commission of liturgical experts, including laymen, "to consider and report such revision and enrichment of the Prayer-Book as will adapt it to present conditions." The Commission has already made two reports, resulting in the addition of new prayers for Courts of Justice, for the Army and Navy, for Memorial Days, and for Religious Education. The third report will be presented at the General Convention which

opens on September 6 at Portland, Oregon.

The Book of Common Prayer has long since ceased to be the exclusive possession of the Episcopal Church. It is the common heritage of all English-speaking peoples and the basic source of the liturgies of all Protestant churches. Any changes, therefore, are of more than passing interest. There is, moreover, a natural hesitancy about revising a book

so interwoven with devotional life and worship. It would be fatally easy to mar its unexampled beauty of phrase and spirit. At the same time, it must be remembered that it does stand in need of adaptation to present conditions. The thirty years since the last revision have witnessed radical changes in theological ideas. The old order of religious thought has changed and yielded place to a new and larger vision. Christian conceptions have been liberalized, and sooner or later the new thought must find adequate expression in our liturgies. In the main, this has been the purpose of this revision.

It must be recognized that the PrayerBook, as it now stands, is more or less saturated with distinctively Hebrew and mediæval phrases and outworn theological ideas which not only mean nothing in these modern days, but are also wellnigh repellent to enlightened people. The opening sentence of the Office of Baptism has long been a rock of offense to parents who bring innocent little children to be baptized and also to the officiating ministers. To have to read, "Forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin," echoes a discarded dogma and is an insult to the sanctity of marriage-so much so that many of the clergy have long refused to read it. The revision omits the phrase entirely. For the old and now meaningless prayer:

O merciful God, grant that the old Adam in this child may be so buried, that the new man may be raised up in him,

this substitute is offered:

O merciful God, grant that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so this child may walk in newness of life.

In the same service such sentences as "being delivered from thy wrath and eternal death," and "may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin" are omitted, and omitted not merely because the phraseology is antiquated, but also because the doctrine therein has been discarded.

The same thing is equally true of the exaggerated expressions of penitence which, especially in the Litany and Penitential Office, were put into the mouths of worshipers. The recurring refrain, "miserable sinners," in the opening sentences of the Litany is omitted, as is also the phrase in the Penitential Office. "who are vile earth and miserable sinners." In the Collect for Good Friday the prayer, "Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, infidels and heretics," which very properly has been deeply resented by the Jewish people, is happily changed to read, "Have mercy upon all who know Thee not as Thou art revealed in the Gospel of thy Son."

The suggested changes in the Marriage Service have been widely heralded in the daily press, especially the recommendation to omit the word “obey" now required from women. The purpose is

to make the marriage vow identical for both the husband and the wife. Another change is the omission of the sentence "with all my worldly goods I thee endow," and in the final prayer Isaac and Rebecca are no longer to be held up as shining examples of fidelity in the married state.

As befits its hallowed associations, the report handles the Burial Office with commendable reserve and makes as few changes as possible, but it does succeed in imparting a more hopeful tone to the whole service. In the opening sentences the comforting and beautiful words of our Lord, "Let not your heart be troubled," are added. In the familiar passage from the Book of Job the very doubtful words, "and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God," are omitted so that the whole passage will read, "I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not as a stranger." One can only regret that the word "vindicator" was not substituted for "redeemer." In the committal of the body to the grave the words, "Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God, in his wise providence, to take out of this world the soul of our deceased brother," are eliminated and the sentence will now read, "Unto Almighty God we commend the soul of our brother departed, and we commit his body to the ground.".

Two important changes are recommended in the service of Holy Communion. One concerns the title which now reads, "The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion." The new suggested title reads,

THE DIVINE LITURGY,
being
The Order For

The Lord's Supper, or Holy Eucharist, commonly called

THE HOLY COMMUNION Opposition to this change has developed so strongly that it is not likely to be adopted. The other change is the proposed permission to omit the stated reasons for the observance of the Ten Commandments when they are read at Holy Communion. It is proposed to print them in this fashion: First the commandment itself; then, in an inset, the reason for observance. For example:

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

The officiating minister may read the whole as of yore, or he may omit the inset. However forceful the reasons for obedience here set forth may have been in the Mosaic dispensation, they carry no appeal to the thoughtful modern mind, and the Commandments gain in strength and dignity by their omission. The report abounds with admirable suggestions for the enrichment of the

Prayer-Book. One such is the provision of a simple but beautiful Office for the Burial of a Child. It has already been widely used and is universally approved. Its keynote is, "Suffer the little children to come unto me." The Commission has also taken a bold, but not overbold, step in providing prayers for the departed. Protestants revolted from such prayers at the Reformation, because they had grown so material and so many abuses followed in their train. But during the Great War, with its attendant losses of fine young lives, such prayers were largely used by the clergy and bereaved parents to their great comfort. They were not found in the Prayer-Book, and recourse was had to other books of devotion. Two or three such prayers are now proposed for insertion in the Burial Office. One may be quoted:

Remember thy servant, O Lord, according to the favor which thou bearest unto thy people, and grant that, increasing in knowledge of thee, he may go from strength to strength in the life of perfect service in thy heavenly kingdom; through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

Other suggested new prayers are for A State Legislature; for The Increase of the Ministry; The Church; Schools and Colleges; Social Justice and for Every Man in His Work. To the Family Prayers Newman's "Support us, O Lord, all the day long of this troublous life" is added as well as a tender prayer for the absent members of the household. How admirably these prayers have been chosen and how applicable they are to our modern social and National life may be judged by this prayer For Our Country:

Almighty God, who hast given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of thy favor and glad to do thy will. Bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion; from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.

Endue

with the spirit of wisdom those to whom in thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to thy law we may show forth thy praise among the nations of the earth. In times of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble suffer not our trust in thee to fail; all which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

As befits so important a task, the revision is proceeding very slowly. Nine years have been already given to it, and, at the earliest, it cannot be completed until 1928, though some portions will be available at the close of this Convention. But, when finally complete, the new Prayer-Book will be in the best sense a treasury of devotion.