offing, with a general realignment of interests. Wu is likely to be crushed by a new attack from Manchuria combined with the defection of some of his allies. The result will probably be to leave supreme in North China a single military leader against whom no liberal civil leadership would avail. But after

a period of inevitable reaction, the grind of destiny will bring into power those men, both North and South, who are determined to build in China an enduring government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The next few months are likely to try the souls of those who believe in a republican China. But until the nightmare of militarism has worn itself out there is little real place for democratic government in Peking, a financial house-cleaning, and the necessary material support from the Powers.

CHINESE CHRISTIANS
IN POLITICS

T is perhaps something more than a

I'coincidence that the most effective po

litical leadership at Peking and the most effective military leadership in Wu Peifu's army have both been in the hands of Chinese Christians.

In the enormous mass of the Chinese population Christians constitute a very small proportion, but their place in Chinese leadership has been of very great importance.

In June, upon the triumph of Wu Pei-fu, there came into office China's first Christian Premier, Dr. W. W. Yen. Like many other Chinese who have represented China in her foreign relations, Dr. Yen had a foreign training. He was graduated at St. John's University (Episcopalian) in Shanghai and studied in the United States at the University of Virginia, where he attained the scholarly distinction of membership in the Phi Beta Kappa. He returned to China to take a professorship in St. John's University. The famous Chinese diplomat Wu Ting-fang was the first to induce him to go into politics. At the outbreak of the war Dr. Yen was Minister to both Germany and Denmark, and he stayed in Berlin until China entered the war, when he withdrew to Copenhagen. He was Minister of Foreign Affairs in China for two or three years, until he became Premier.

Having accepted the Premiership only temporarily, Dr. Yen was succeeded by another Christian Chinese in the Premiership, Dr. C. H. Wang. Like Dr. Yen, Dr. Wang received a foreign training. He is a graduate of Yale and has specialized in law. He has been China's Chief Justice, and while Chief Justice was a delegate of China to the Arma

GENERAL FENG

ment Conference at Washington. In manner Dr. Wang is mild and gentle, but he made upon those who met him in Washington during that Conference an impression that could only be made by a firm and strong personality. No one meeting Dr. Wang and knowing his record can doubt his patriotism, or his public spirit, or his disinterested purpose to serve his people. In spite of his helplessness in the face of the military situation, to have such a man as that in public office in China, and particularly in office as Prime Minister, is of real promise for China's future.

CHINESE CHRISTIANS IN WAR

WH

HILE these men of Christian faith and high character have been in political office, the most effective military leadership in China has undoubtedly been that of another Christian, General Feng Yu-hsiang. He has not only been the most effective general in war, but he has also been and is the Governor of Honan Province. He has been likened more than once to Oliver Cromwell, and his men to Cromwell's Ironsides.

General Feng's methods of fighting may revolutionize military operations in China-and revolutionize them for the better. A people of industry and thrift, who have long had reason to be disgusted with political corruption and

with militarism, the Chinese generally seem not to have much stomach for fighting. As we have had occasion to say before now, and as many of our readers need not to be told, until recently in so-called battles in China there has not been much bloodshed nor much determination for victory. The so-called battles have been largely maneuvers When one force has maneuvered another force into a bad position, the general on the losing side has followed the example of the chess player and has usually yielded the game. "You win," says the defeated general;

"we will drop this, and start a new campaign." At this point the victorious soldiers then begin their real operations. Unopposed and unhindered, they run amuck with fire and sword. They loot, destroy, kill, and torture.

Their victims are the unarmed and pacifist population. This is the natural and practically inevitable fruit of pacifism. The result is a loss of life and an amount of suffering greatly exceeding even the worst involved in modern warfare. In the Chinese variety of battle the soldiers are safe; it is the defenseless civilian population, especially the women and children, who are the victims.

Feng has changed that. Feng's army does not slaughter the defenseless. It fights those who would slaughter the defenseless. General Feng himself is a Methodist convert, and about eighty per cent of his soldiers are said to be Christians, and of the officers all are Christians. According to information we have received, Feng regularly employs two evangelists to work among his troops at all times, and occasionally some of the leading missionary evangelists go for two or three weeks among the soldiers. When Feng's troops encamp, all evil women in the vicinity are immediately driven out. The officers meet regularly for Bible study in a sort of normal class; then in turn they hold Bible study classes with the soldiers. The spirit of Cromwell's Ironsides has seemed to reappear in Feng's camp. Like Cromwell's men, Feng's soldiers are relentless in battle. Without unduly idealizing the men of Feng's army, it is possible to regard them as a vast improvement over the Chinese soldiers who count cowardice a virtue and adorn it with atrocity.

If the Chinese can get the spirit of Yen and Wang into public office and the spirit of Feng into the army, they may make of their country a really great nation. They may create a force which will be equally unselfish in service and inexorable against exploitation. There is no greater libel that has ever been uttered against Christianity than that it is a religion of feebleness. On the con

disposed corporations have laid hands upon the Gulf Stream, have been utilizing it to their own advantage, and have thereby put the world in a parlous condition. Happily, the fact seems to be that the good old Gulf Stream is still carrying on and is benefiting commerce and climate in the most benignant manner. The whole thing is an amusing illustration of the way in which a scientific hypothesis may be twisted into a note of alarm and terror. An eminent French scientist, Professor Berget, who is the Director of the Bureau of Oceanography in Paris, seems to have discussed the possible results that might come if the Gulf Stream were turned from its course, say, by completing "the railway that goes to sea" all the way from Florida to Cuba-than which nothing is less likely. Thereupon the newspaper sensationalists and headliners represented Professor Berget as declaring that terrible evils were about to befall the world because of what already had been done in Florida; Scotland, we believe, was to become a country of Polar ice; England was to have its temperature drop to forty degrees below zero. and it was to become impossible to grow crops in western Europe.

Our American scientists, and especially the officials of the United States Weather Bureau, immediately came to the defense of the Gulf Stream, and Europe is now safe. They declared that nothing had been done or was likely to be done which would shift the Gulf Stream, and that even if it were thrown out of its present channel it was more than doubtful whether the effect on Europe's weather would be what had been predicted. All sorts of other scientists and practical men came to the rescue also to show that nothing whatever had been done to call for alarm or sensation.

Finally, an amusing aspect of the discussion cropped up when it was asserted that the whole excitement had arisen from the efforts of various Florida boomers to show that their particular towns had the very best conceivable climate in the world because the Gulf Stream had very kindly moved over in their direction. Thereupon the whole discussion resolved itself into an inter

not headlined by the sensationalists.

FOR BETTER RACE RELATIONS

AN

N extensive report has been made by the Commission on Race Relations appointed by former Governor Lowden, of Illinois, to study the history and meaning of the race riot which took place in Chicago in 1919. As a result a formidable volume of 650 pages has been printed for the Commission by the University of Chicago Press.

If this volume dealt solely with the Chicago riots it might be of limited value, but it contains a large amount of matter bearing on the race question the country over. It should prove of high importance as material for study of the question anywhere in America. The recommendations made, former Governor Lowden declares, will, if acted upon, make a repetition of the tragedy of 1919 impossible. He particularly calls attention to the recommendation that permanent local commissions on race relations be created. As a proof of the value of this, he can well point to the work of the Chicago Commission. Its appointment was the Governor's first act after the riots and while the danger of recurrence was imminent. From the date of the appointment, confidence was restored and conditions rapidly improved. The Commission was composed of carefully selected representatives of both races; they worked without friction and agreed substantially on facts and on recommendations.

One interesting fact was that the minimum of friction between the races existed in Chicago in just that part of the city in which colored people have lived longest and in the largest numbers. It was the floating population of Negroes seeking work and the less intelligent white workers who thought that they might be driven out by a flood of Negro labor that were behind the ill feeling. Thus, when regrettable and causeless incidents occurred, the hatred behind the incidents led to the outbreak of savagery.

The sequence of events in this Chicago riot is typical of the way in which such bloodthirsty affairs spring up suddenly and as suddenly run wild. A white saloon-keeper died of heart trouble, but

some reckless reporter wrote that he had been killed by a Negro; that night white toughs fired on a group of Negroes; similar incidents followed, until not long before the riot two colored men were shot down absolutely without cause or reason except race hatred, and, so the Commission reports, policemen who saw the murders refused to make arrests. So hate and violence increased until one Sunday at a lake-front beach a young Negro, who had swum pushing a log before him over into the section of water supposed by an invisible line to be reserved for whites only, was stoned, let go his log, and was drowned. This was the event that started the reign of terror, and within a few days there were 38 deaths (15 of whites and 23 of Negroes) and 537 people were injured. In time order was restored, but too late to save lives of innocent people or homes from destruction.

It was perfectly evident to everybody that the work was, as the Governor said, the work of the worst element of both races. So the Governor's Commission set to work to study the question thoroughly and impartially. No fewer than fifty-nine recommendations are made, ranging from large questions, such as the causes of all race antagonism and racial intolerance, down to the suggestions that the word Negro should be spelled with a capital "N" and the word "nigger" should be avoided as a needless provocative. The recommendations are notable for their specific form and are addressed specifically in groups to all the municipal boards, to municipal and State officials, to the courts, and to the public at large. We commend this study of a troublesome and serious question to all who wish to see the relations of the white and colored races improved.

IT

THE COMING
ELECTION

T will be somewhat difficult to disentangle from the results of the coming election on November 7 the settlement of any National issue. Most of the elections of Senators, Representatives in Congress, and Governors will be determined to a large extent by local and personal conditions. There are, however, two important National questions upon which the vote will throw at least some light-the question of probibition, and the question as to whether the country is on the whole satisfied with the general course of the present Administration in Washington.

It may be set down as an almost invariable political law that mid-Administration elections are usually unfav

ble. All Presidents are api to fall short of what is expected of them during their first year and a half of office. Every time the party of opposition returns to power its adherents expect its Presidential nominee to bring about a political millennium. This was so when Mr. Wilson was elected; it will prove to be so in the case of Mr. Harding, and especially because he was elected by such an overwhelming and unprecedented majority. We may therefore fully expect to find partisan Democratic papers on November 8 pointing out that Mr. Harding and all his ways and works have been repudiated; and equally we may find partisan Republican papers proving how astonishing it is that so many Democrats who voted for him in 1920 have stayed by him. We do not think that mid-Administration elections are very significant thermometers regarding the political temperature produced by Presidential policies. The real test in this respect will come two years from

now.

More decisive conclusions may be drawn from the vote on the prohibition question. In Ohio there will be a popular referendum on the modification of the State liquor law by raising the legal alcoholic content of beverages. The "Wets" thus propose to relieve State officers from any responsibility in the enforcement of the Volstead Act. If the proposal is carried, it can have no other effect than registering the sentiment of the majority of the people of Ohio upon the Prohibition Amendment and the Volstead Law; for Federal officers will still possess the same authority that they possessed before. As a means, how ever, of registering public opinion the proposal has been shrewdly drawn by those who wish to modify or weaken the Prohibition Amendment, and the result will be significant. In New Jersey the issue is very clear cut. Senator Frelinghuysen is running for re-election as an avowed supporter of the Prohibition Amendment and the Volstead Enforcement Act; Governor Edwards is running against him for the Senatorship in avowed opposition to prohibition in all its phases. If Senator Frelinghuysen should win, it would be reasonable to make the deduction that the sentiment on the Atlantic seaboard is favorable to prohibition. In California Mr. Richardson is running for the Governorship as a "Dry" candidate, and while his campaign turns to some extent upon questions of taxation and economy, if he should be elected it would be a distinct triumph for prohibition sentiment. In Nebraska Senator Hitchcock, the Democratic nominee to succeed himself in the United States Senate, has come out

openly as favoring prohibition, although he has heretofore been counted among the "Wets." It is said that Mr. Bryan is now supporting him, while in the past he has opposed him because of their differences on the liquor question. We look upon these various tests of prohibition sentiment with some concern. Now that the Amendment is a part of the Constitution it should be given a fair trial, and it cannot be given a fair tria! with some of the country half-heartedly wet and some of the country half-heartedly dry.

In New York State the chief and perhaps the only contest of National interest is that between Governor Miller, the Republican nominee, and ex-Governor "AI" Smith, the Democratic nominee. Governor Miller has never made a special feature of his views on prohibition, but ex-Governor Smith is avowedly for "light wines and beer." The contest is, however, really between an extraordinarily magnetic personality, on the one hand, and a candidate who makes his appeal not through personal popularity, but through the highest standards of efficiency in political administration. If Governor Miller wins, it will be because the voters of New York have resisted the temptation to vote for the candidate whom they thoroughly like, in spite of his association with Tammany Hall, in order to place again in the Governor's chair a man who has shown as scrupulous honesty and as high standards of efficiency as perhaps have ever been displayed at Albany.

The Middle West, as Mr. Davenport's articles and some of the political correspondence elsewhere in this issue have pointed out, is seething with dissatisfaction about more economic and social conditions than can be catalogued and tabulated. In Wisconsin Senator La Follette and his organization are appeal ing to all those who for one reason or another dislike certain American traditions. Unfortunately, pro-Germanism in the worst sense of that word still flourishes in this country. In Iowa the candidacy of Colonel Brookhart for the Senatorship is the result of dissatisfaction of the farmers of the Middle West, who feel that everybody but themselves has had political consideration in the economic readjustment following the

war.

LLOYD GEORGE IN

A

ECLIPSE

S no man can live wholly unto himself, so no nation can change its government, or even its policies foreign or domestic, without affect ing other nations. In one sense, whether Great Britain chooses to dis place Lloyd George from the head of the British Government is no concern of ours. Certainly Americans have no right to ask the British people to con sider their wishes in the matter. And yet decisions affecting the interests of America as well as of France, Russia, Italy, and Germany, the peoples of the Balkans, the Near East, and even pos sibly nations on the other side of the globe, will be affected by the fact that the man who came into power in Britain when Britain was fighting with but a fraction of her strength, turned the resources of the Empire over to the cause of victory, guided the nation not only through a military triumph but through a diplomatic triumph even more notable. virtually banished the Irish question as a plague of English politics and as an American bugbear, and diverted into normal channels of protest revolutionary sentiment that was making the labor problem an international one, has now been dismissed. In another sense, therefore, the change in the British Government is very much our concern We are not responsible for it. We can do nothing about it. But we shall be undoubtedly affected by it.

Though the cause of Lloyd George's retirement as Prime Minister was chiefly, if not wholly, one of domestic politics, its effect will nowhere be felt more definitely than in Britain's foreign affairs.

On the wisdom of the change from the British point of view American com ment is not likely to be helpful. In the first place, it is not likely to be ade quately informed; an ignorant comment is likely to be irritating even to those whom it favors. Even English comment is not altogether clarifying. It is not by any means certain that the English people themselves understand what has been done or why it has been don Some of the old-time distinctions be tween Liberals and Conservatives have been obliterated by the effects of the war and by the subsequent, if not wholly consequent, social and economic changes in England. Now that the Coalition has broken up, the old Libera! party seems still feeble, while a Government conducted, as Bonar Law's Government seems to be, by those who used to be recognized as the governing class seems somewhat incongruous at a time when

the old-fashioned Tory method of sitting on the safety valve is particularly dangerous.

If England ever needed liberal leadership she needs it now. Will the Labor Party force the Conservatives to become Liberals in self-defense? Will Lloyd George convince the people that they must choose between the Conservative Party and the Empire? Is there any other leader in England that can command a following that Lloyd George can? Britain, as it has been remarked, is sound financially but rotten economically. To restore economic health to a country cursed with unemployment as England is will require something more than a die-hard conservative or a politician with a captivating personality.

Whatever the cause of the overturn in Britain, the effect on Britain's foreign policies has already begun to be seen. Lloyd George's instability has irritated and disconcerted the statesmen of other countries, but especially those of France. In particular, the unreliability of his course in applying the terms of the Peace Treaty with Germany has been one of the important factors in the European situation. Sir Edward Carson has been quoted by the Oxford students who have recently visited America to debate with American students as describing the peace established by the Treaty of Versailles as "the peace which passeth all understanding." Certainly

as applied by Lloyd George no one could be expected to understand it. Perhaps it is because he modified its terms by his own interpretation that he was the longest to last of the "Big Four" who negotiated it. Perhaps he had to seem uncertain to his foreign neighbors in order to keep his power at home. Perhaps the friction that has accompanied his negotiations ever since the Peace Treaty was signed was the inevitable product of England's economic turmoil and political instability. Nevertheless it is impossible to relieve Mr. Lloyd George of the responsibility for much that has happened in the fostering of misunderstanding over the enforcement of the German reparations, as well as the negotiations concerning the Near East. It is impossible for the foreign observer to ignore the fact that in Europe, except with Germany and her allies, Lloyd George's retirement has been greeted mainly with expressions of relief.

Nothing that has occurred in connection with the change in the British Government indicates, as far as we can see, any reason for a change in the attitude of America toward Europe. We have every reason for continuing to give our aid to those who are helpless, though those very helpless ones may have

ALASKA

THE MISUNDERSTOOD

D

o you know that Alaska is the most misunderstood territory on earth to-day? The popular notion that Alaska is composed entirely of blizzards, icebergs, and Eskimos is a mistake. Nearly one thousand miles north of where Alaska begins there are enormous wheat-fields, vegetable gardens, and scorching summer days when the mercury climbs to 90°. An Eskimo on the streets of Fairbanks would be a seven-day wonder. If you think that Alaska is still the land of the "rough-neck," it will interest you to know that a dinner-jacket is as useful in Alaska as in New York, and that modish fashions in dress reach Alaska almost as soon as they reach Boston and Philadelphia.

Sherman Rogers has just returned from Alaska, and in a series of articles soon to appear in The Outlook he punctures hundreds of our illusions about the Land of the Midnight Sun. He describes in full exactly what Alaska is and what Alaska needs. He describes its neglect by Congress, and outlines the remedy.

Mr. Rogers's report on Alaska-is likely to excite much controversy. It is the story of billions of dollars' worth of potential wealth "and opportunities of social and political development which at present lie fettered beneath crushing masses of administrative red tape.

neighbors whose obligation to them is more direct than ours. We have every reason to look with sympathy upon every effort towards liberty and true self-government, even when we have no means of giving material aid. But for intervention or for interference in the

general political or economic situation there seems to us to be no present necessity. The time may come when a more active policy than we are now pursuing may be effective; but if it is to be effective then, we must be careful not to do what would be ineffective now.

THE THIRD DEGREE

I'

F published reports are to be credited, legal officials and detectives in the New Brunswick murder case have furnished another example of the futility as well as the un-American cruelty of "third degree" methods. One person thus treated, not under arrest, already questioned repeatedly, was called out' of his back door early in the evening by mysterious men, taken to a room where lawyers and detectives were waiting, and subjected to a rapid fire of interrogation that lasted for many hours and well into the early morning. He had no counsel, no friend to guard his interests. Under these circumstances the "grilling" was peculiarly an outrage. The result was apparently negligible. Another man, whom events proved to be untrustworthy, was supposed to know something he had not told. He was bullied and cross-questioned and threatened until he broke down nervously and accused of the murder a friend of his who, events showed, was innocent and who was discharged soon after his arrest. In this instance the result was a good deal worse than nothing.

There is such a thing as moral and mental as well as physical torture. It is repugnant to Anglo-Saxon ideas of personal liberty. There should be wide latitude offered to keen-witted investigation of crime, but the examination of accused or suspected persons should be conducted by a judicial officer under such circumstances that coercion and physical breaking down of the questioned person should be prevented. Scientists and lawyers agree that coerced confessions or testimony are frequently false when admitted as evidence at all, they are regarded as the poorest kind of evidence.

Pride in the fine traditions of AngloSaxon law and judicial procedure should not lead us to ignore the merit in some other traditions. In respect to the examination of suspected persons or of reluctant witnesses, the French follow a method much superior to the "third degree" both in its efficiency and in its justice. Such examination is conducted openly by the judge who exercises great liberty in his questions but is restrained from excess not only by tradition and by the dignity of his office but by the very publicity of the procedure.

E

VERY political ostrich in the coun

try has his head in the sand, the while squeaking plaintively that the radical success in Wisconsin does not mean anything serious. It all depends on what one considers serious. The fact has to be faced that in the Wisconsin primary election of September 5 Socialism gained the greatest victory that it has ever won in American politics. That Robert M. La Follette received not merely a majority, but a smashing, an overwhelming majority, was due to the Milwaukee Socialist organization, incomparably the best disciplined and most efficient political machine in the United States.

It is, moreover, entirely possible that Congress will again be confronted with the necessity of deciding what to do with Victor Berger.

Last spring Berger went to the National Convention of his party and persuaded the delegates so to change the rules as to permit the Wisconsin branch to make no nomination for Senator, and thus leave the members free to vote for La Follette. Perhaps it was in his mind to show the country that the bulk of the La Follette followers were now willing to share the name as well as the principles of Socialism. The outcome has justified his opinion. The La Follette faction met the avowed Socialists more than half-way. If the November decision affirms the September verdict, the full strength developed by La Follette may be counted as Socialist strength.

The real, the true reason why Socialism has made such political gains in Wisconsin since 1917 is because the European War consolidated the spirit of revolt against the Yankee tradition. The same thing is true of the whole group of Mid-Western granger States that have been populated by Continental peasants. Probably there are not more people in Wisconsin than in some other States who feel that the United States is not a country, but there are more who openly say so and who will vote for a man whose words and acts mean substantially the same thing. The two groups that dominate an immense area and population-the German and the Scandinavian-have been brought into almost complete accord by the events of the war. Scandinavian Minnesota was as balky in war time as German Wisconsin. Half a dozen States need only the same quality of leadership that Wisconsin has to become articulate in the same way. The depeasantized peasants, as H. G. Wells calls them, have in their common hatred of Yankeedom a stronger bond of unity than ever existed before.

In Wisconsin, and particularly in Milwaukee, an absurd state of affairs has resulted from the attempt to ignore

the facts. There is no wholesome ventilation of the political premises and no exchange of views on the subject that is uppermost in everybody's mind but which nobody talks about. Nobody, that is to say, except Victor Berger, for the Socialist leader is almost alone in speaking plainly. It is perfectly well known that the so-called conservative Germanlanguage papers really wanted La Follette to win in the primary and want Berger to win in November; that business men who were publicly enrolled as contributors to anti-radical funds have privately given both their money and their votes to help the Socialists win; but that it is not considered polite to mention these facts.

Berger, always more open than La Follette or the German editors who support La Follette, occasionally speaks his mind. Two weeks before the primary election, in a remarkably shrewd analysis and forecast, he gave his reasons for expecting a Socialist victory, and of three causes contributing to the situation, political and economic and ethnic, he gave most consideration to the ethnic. Here is a part of the statement, published in his "Findings" on August 22:

Ethnical. The United States are not an ethnical unit. Our population is of mixed European descent.

Naturally, the inherited characteristics and instincts play a strong part in our lives, and even for that reason alone the American participation in the World War was a crime and a blunder. Our mission naturally should have been one of peace.

Wisconsin is overwhelmingly German and Scandinavian.

For some reason La Follette always has had a strong hold on the Scandinavian farmers--which surely was not lessened by the position he took against the war, because the Scandinavians, by a large majority, were not in favor of the war.

And undoubtedly La Follette has gained the sympathies of ninety-nine per cent of all the voters of German descent, who by instinct as much as by political and economic insight were opposed to our entrance into the World War.

Add to this that the Irish element during the war and since the war has also come to appreciate Robert M. La Follette as he had never been appreciated before. It will be a sorry Irishman, indeed, who would vote for the Rev. "Big Bill" Ganfield in preference to voting for Robert M. La Follette.

The reactionaries in their stupidity have made the war the issue in this election. They have boldly proclaimed that the nomination and election of Robert M. La Follette is to be considered a referendum on the war question.

They will get their "referendum."

Now, although the German Socialists may manifest a tender interest in the Irish before election, in their secret hearts they fear the Irish politician. To this day they do not know just how it came about that Dan Hoan, of true Hibernian breed, became the Socialist Mayor of this Teutonic town. Berger likes to avail himself of Irish political skill, but it is part of the Socialist programme to make an end of Irish and Anglo-American leadership. With scandalous disregard of this ambition, sundry Irishmen went out on September 5 and cleaned up the best county nominations in sight. Inasmuch as the Irish in Milwaukee are relatively about as numerous as Scotchmen in Hester Street, a sporting population would have been moved to admiration. Not so a community whose motto, under the direct primary, has become, "Everybody welch." The day after the primary, defeated candidates agitated the air with cries of rage and demands for an independent ticket. Berger was moved to sympathy for the defeated Republican candidates and said in his disgust:

Shaughnessy, McManus, Cary, Phelps-here is a real, smashing defeat of the "Huns" in Milwaukee County-in spite of Bob La Follette's Hunnish triumph. Let Bob make progressive laws; they, the genuine paytriots, will "stand pat" on the pay check.

There were eight candidates for district attorney; Koenig, Bartelt, Graebner, Groelle, Juergens, et al.. and Shaughnessy beat the lot. Pat McManus beat "Heinie" Bulder for county treasurer, in spite of the fact that "Heinie” holds the office now and had, besides. presented the Milwaukee zoo with an elephant. This defeat exasperated the supporters of both the Kaiser and the zoo and caused Berger to remind his readers that the elephant is the source of commercial ivory. However, Berger is too subtle for his constituency.

Some Wisconsin editors have sent out word that the vote for La Follette should not be regarded as an indorsement of his war record-which is of course the Socialist war record also. The statement is absurd. In the primary campaign no issue was more fairly and squarely before the people than that very question.

However unpalatable the fact may be. a record of service in the war of 1917-18 is a liability and not an asset for a candidate in Wisconsin.

Almost every ex-service man who tried for a nomination in the primary was spurlos versunkt. Paulsen, with the record of a first-class fighting man, tried for Secretary of State, and in a more direct way than anybody else challenged