umphantly returned by increased majorities over Fusion candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties.

Opposition to the seating of the Socialists was on the opening day of the new session apparently doomed to defeat. The opinion of the Assembly seemed at least indicated in part by the parliamentary jockeying of the opening day. Action on a resolution calling for the ousting of the Socialists was temporarily postponed by being referred to the Judiciary Committee. Assemblyman Cuvillier asked for a slow roll-call on this motion to refer. "All in favor of a slow call will rise," said Speaker Sweet. And only Cuvillier rose.

During the overnight adjournment, however, the Sweet forces gathered strength, and on the following day three of the Socialists were expelled by a vote of 90 to 45, after a debate which lasted eleven hours. The two Socialists who were not expelled thereupon promptly resigned. We shall have more to say concerning this episode in a subsequent issue of The Outlook.

The expulsion of the five Socialists at the last session of the Legislature has been condemned by practically every Republican and Democrat whose opinion is worth listening to.

Radicals who preach "direct action," so-called liberals who have lost faith in American institutions and American political parties, will doubtless seek to make capital of this latest exhibition of this second expulsion. They will be wrong in principle and fact. Time will show that the ballot-box is still available for the vindication of any just cause and that the American electorate will, in the long run, force its representatives to swing back to the lodestone of American ideals.

THE PRIMARY BATTLE
IN ILLINOIS

NE of the stormiest of all primary Notions and the most bitter and sensational contest in the history of Illinois was the primary election of September 15. It was a battle between the Thompson-Lundin organization of Chicago, seeking to extend its power from the city to the State, and the socalled Harmony Group, led by Governor Lowden, Attorney-General Brundage, and former Governor Deneen.

A goodly number of people in Chicago and a great majority of people "down State" believe that the organization of which Mayor Thompson, of Chicago, is the head was, to say the least, unpatriotic during the war. The Thompson organization is regarded as

THE TRAGEDY IN WALL STREET-BODIES OF VICTIMS WAITING REMOVAL

the best imitation of Tammany Hall in the West. Its opponents, attacking it on the grounds of extravagance, coarse spoils methods, and lack of patriotism, raised a cry, "No Tammany for Illinois.'

On the other side, Mayor Thompson accused the opposing group of being subservient to public utility corporations and talked much of profiteering.

To oppose the Thompson ticket there were many candidates, and unless the opposition to the Thompson organization was to be defeated by division it was necessary for the leaders to get together and select a ticket on which the decent elements of the party could unite. Of course this meant that the Republican voter had no other choice than that between candidates backed by the Thompson group and the candidates backed by the Lowden group. A voter of progressive inclination was not naturally drawn to either. The Thompson candidate for Governor, Len Small, seemed at first to have been successful over his opponent, LieutenantGovernor Oglesby, son of the Oglesby Governor Oglesby, son of the Oglesby who was Governor of Illinois during the closing days of the Civil War. On the other hand, the Lowden candidate the other hand, the Lowden candidate for Senator, who was opposed by Frank L. Smith, a real estate man and banker, seems to have been successful. The Lowden candidate was William B. McKinley, at present Representative in Congress and head of the Illinois traction system operating an extensive network of car lines in central Illinois. Mr. McKinley has had a reputation as a very conservative, not to say reactionary, man in Congress. He was one of

under the circumstances is a satisfaction.

A reader of The Outlook in Illinois, after this experience with the primary as it works there, expresses in a letter his conviction that the fallacies of the primary system as applied to National matters having been pretty thoroughly demonstrated before the Presidential conventions, its failure in the State has been demonstrated in Illinois. He is led to ask if the faults of the convention system were not the faults of a people whose political conscience was asleep and if we might not now safely asleep and give it another trial, trusting to the awakened conscience of the people to make it function aright. It brings up again the question Mr. Pulsifer asked in his article a few weeks ago in The Outlook on "The Pig and the Primary," whether there cannot be devised a combination of the convention and the primary which will more nearly approximate popular rule in party organizations?

The Democratic primary was not nearly so vigorous as the Republican. It resulted in the nomination of James Hamilton Lewis, former Senator, for the Governorship, and Peter A. Waller, a glove manufacturer, for the Senatorship. Mr. Waller was nearly "nosed out" by Robert Emmet Burke, who is anti-prohibition, anti-Wilson, antiLeague, and in favor of independence for Ireland. Mr. Waller's success is a victory, though a narrow one, for the Wilson wing of the party.

THE NOMINATIONS IN
NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT
N New York State the primary result

the most bitter opponents of the Pro- was a complete victory in both parties I

gressives in 1912; and yet to those who look for good government his success

for the organization ticket. Both Repub

licans and Democrats had assembled in unofficial conventions and named candidates for the State tickets. Senator Thompson undertook to compete with the designated candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor, Mr. Miller, but was decisively defeated. Nevertheless he had the consolation of winning the Prohibition nomination, as did the woman, Mrs. Boule, who shared with Mr. Payne the opposition to Senator Wadsworth for the United States Senatorship.

The Democratic ticket as designated at the unofficial convention was likewise approved by the Democrats, who did not cast nearly as many votes in their primary as the Republicans did in theirs.

In Connecticut Senator Brandegee, a vigorous opponent of the Wilson plan of the League of Nations, has been renominated for the Senatorship. A good many advocates of the League hoped that he would be forced to face a Democratic nominee who would really contest the election with him. Such a

man as they had in mind was Homer S. Cummings, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who made the "keynote speech" in support of the League of Nations at the Democratic National Convention at San Francisco. At the last moment, however, Mr. Cummings withdrew his name. It is a matter of surmise whether he was influenced by the results of the Maine election, which was overwhelmingly in favor of the Republicans.

The Republican nominee for Governor in Connecticut is Everett Lake, a former Progressive.

A SAFETY MARGIN FOR SUFFRAGE

Q

criticisms of the method by which it was ratified in Tennessee bid fair to receive their quietus. The Legislature receive their quietus. The Legislature of the State of Connecticut has now ratified the Amendment by a vote of 216 to 11 in the House and 33 to 0 in the Senate. Again, as in Tennessee, certain legal difficulties arose. The special session of the Legislature at which this vote was taken was called to change the State law for new women voters. Although Governor Holcomb warned. the Legislature that certain complications might occur if the Amendment was ratified at this session, the Legislature chose to disregard this warning. But a second special session of the Legislature has been called for September 21, and if there is any doubt as to the legality of the first vote of ratification, the overwhelming majority by which it was passed definitely assures its final acceptance at this second session.

AMERICAN SHIPS FOR
AMERICAN GOODS

THE Jones Bill, now law, makes pro

vision for the upbuilding of an American merchant marine. The bill have long labored to bring about an aims to realize the hopes of those who ample and efficient marine, to serve as a naval auxiliary as well as a commercial carrier, to consist of suitable types of vessels equipped in the best possible way, all to be ultimately owned and operated privately by American citi

zens.

This is not the case now. During the war German tonnage was driven from converted to war craft. Congress then the sea and Allied tonnage had to be began its great programme of Government shipbuilding.

The Act provides for the termination of and of Government ownership and operation, orders the sale of the present Government fleet, enlarges the membership of the Shipping Board in its control of

UARRELS over the legality of the Suffrage Amendment to the Federal Constitution occasioned by the

International

existing Government shipping and its encouragement of new lines, and gives economic advantages and preferential rates to goods exported or imported in American ships.

These discriminatory provisions, however, conflict with no less than twentynine treaties with twenty-four States and are sure to provoke resentment. Under the Act the treaties must be abrogated and new agreements made.

As a matter of fact, practically all treaties provide in their text for a change or denunciation in part or in whole. Such change is constantly being undertaken, and without publicity. It is not commonly known that since 1914 our Government has notified sixteen nations of its wish to abrogate various treaties. In practically every case our desire was acceded to without special adjustment.

Our new discriminatory policy even extends to the exemption from payment of excess profits and war profits taxes, provided the money so retained is put into the building of new ships in American yards. All these measures to fight foreign competition have been taken to restore the legislative advantage under which our maritime supremacy was obtained a century ago. Because of the repeal of this legislation there ensued, it is claimed, a steady decline, so that in 1910 less than nine per exports were carried in American vescent of American overseas imports and sels. As a result of the present absence of foreign competition, together with our own Governmental effort, we have now nearly two-thirds of the carrying trade between our own and foreign ports.

WE SAY A GOOD WORD FOR THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

NPost Office Department

EWS despatches report that the

has

awarded three contracts for postal service by airplane between Pittsburgh and St. Louis via Columbus, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis; between New York and Chicago via Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, and Fort Wayne; and between New York and Atlanta via Washington, Raleigh, North Carolina, and Columbia, South Carolina. The planes which are to be built for this service will also carry passengers. The planes for day service will be equipped with comfortable wicker chairs, while those for night service will have sleeping accommodations.

The Post Office has been frequently criticised for its experimental work in aerial transportation. The carrying of mails by airplane has been denounced in Congress as a useless extravagance.

To us the criticisms seem beside the mark. Whatever criticisms may be made of the methods of operation of the mail plane, and it is entirely natural to presume that under the circumstances some such criticism may be legitimately offered, we believe that the Post Office is to be heartily commended for its recognition of the need of developing aerial transportation as a great commercial asset and as a vital element in our programme of National defense.

Those who are anxious to learn what other governments and countries are doing for commercial aviation should secure a copy of "Aerial Transport," by G. Holt Thomas, published by Hodder & Stoughton, London.

THE JENNY LIND CENTENARY

A

NOVELTY in anniversaries is to be the celebration in New York City of the birth centenary of Jenny Lind, the "Swedish Nightingale." The birth date, October 6, will be honored by a Jenny Lind Concert at which Miss Frieda Hempel, of the Metropolitan Opera Company, will sing the songs heard by the vast audience which greeted Jenny Lind's first appearance in America, September 11, 1850, at Castle Garden, now the Aquarium, in New York City's Battery Park. Miss Hempel will use the very piano employed at that first concert, and will wear a replica of the gown Jenny Lind then wore.

When one names Jenny Lind, one thinks instantly of P. T. Barnum. Beyond doubt he was the greatest press agent ever known. He has been called also the greatest of humbugs, but, as a matter of fact, like all good publicity men of our own day, he knew perfectly well that the way to succeed is to give the public its money's worth. He certainly did this when he acted as impresario for Jenny Lind. She had a great reputation and a marvelous voice, and Barnum's success in working up excitement about her appearance was due to the fact that the attraction was genuine and unique. He offered $200 for a prize ode (Bayard Taylor won the prize); sold tickets by auction at prices from $653 down-the buyers were usually keen press agents for themselves; had his diva, when she landed, driven under triumphal arches amid the acclamations of enormous crowds, and engineered a serenade to her by musical societies escorted by hundreds of red-shirted firemen.

All this excitement evidently failed to spoil Jenny Lind. She was not only a great singer, but a simple, sincere, and warm-hearted woman. It is said that

Bain News Service

JENNY LIND

she refused one suitor to her hand because he wanted her to continue her career while she wished to make a home, and another because she found that his family disapproved of her stage career. With the money she made (her first American trip yielded her about $175,000) she was generous; she helped many poor girls to study music, and gave scores of thousands of dollars in charity. One writer, Mr. F. B. Pitney, in the New York "Tribune," answers the question, Why a Jenny Lind Centenary? by saying: "Jenny Lind is a tradition, a legend, a fetish, an idol, and an ideal."

AN ACCOUNTING WITH

66

T

THE STEWARD

HERE are now two great and several minor parties in the United States. . . . What are their principles, their distinctive tenets, their tendencies? . . . This is what a European is always asking of intelligent Republicans and intelligent Democrats. He is always asking because he never. gets an answer. . . . Neither party has . . . any clean-cut principles, any distinctive tenets. Both have traditions. Both claim to have tendencies. . . . But... tenets and policies, points of political doctrine and points of political practice, have all but vanished."

That is the impression which our American parties have made upon the most acute and most thoroughly informed of writers upon American institutions, Viscount Bryce, as recorded in his " American Commonwealth."

Certainly in the sense in which British political parties have principles and tenets, the two great parties of America

lack them. Neither can be called conservative or progressive, reactionary or radical.

As a matter of fact, however, there is a difference between the parties in America that is not merely the natural difference between the Ins and the Outs. It is the difference, not of political creed, but of political temperament. It is the difference between the idealist with all his virtues and his faults and the realist with all his faults and his virtues.

There are times when a community needs especially the service of those who are prolific in theories and in ideas, fertile in suggestion, ready with plans and projects. There are other times when the community needs especially the service of those who are competent in performance, able to do well the task in hand, practiced in achievement. Thus it happens that the voters of America have sometimes turned to one of the two great parties, sometimes to the other.

For nearly eight years they have intrusted the conduct of National affairs to the party whose temperament is that of the theorist, the idealist, the visionary, and the doctrinaire. It is the party that was quickest to see the idealism of the French Revolution, and quickest to fall prey to its vagaries. It is the party most inclined to the cause of secession, whether in America or in the Philippines or in Great Britain or on the Continent of Europe, and proclaims that as an ideal under the name of selfdetermination, blinking the facts and the difficulties while sympathizing with the aims and ambitions of struggling peoples. It is the party that is temperamentally more interested in a plan or theory than in its workings. And it has had in the office of Chief Executive a man typical of its temperament.

Now, according to the American practice, at the end of a second fouryear period it is again called upon to make a reckoning with its employer, the American people.

The fact that it offers not the present steward but another man as a candidate for the stewardship does not alter the fact that the coming election will be a verdict upon that party's record. The Democratic party has accepted Mr. Wilson's Administration as its own, and Mr. Cox has indorsed the Wilson Administration and given the people every reason to believe that the standards of Mr. Wilson's stewardship are his own.

It is this record and the impression that it has made upon the people on which the voters will render their judg ment. All questions of policy, such as

the League of Nations, and all questions of personality, such as Mr. Wilson's methods of conducting his office and Mr. Cox's fitness to be his successor, are involved in this question of the party's record.

It must not be forgotten that this party of theorists within two years of its accession to power enacted a body of law which constitutes a programme of distinctive achievement; nor that it was in power when the country fought in the greatest war of history and helped to win the victory; but it is as a party of theory that it has made its record for the most part, and it is as a party of theory that it submits its claim for a renewal of authority.

Mr. Wilson offered himself to his country as the exponent of a body of theory which he termed "the new freedom." That theory involved a denunciation of "government by commission" and such an indictment against business as organized in America as to constitute distrust of business men as business men. On becoming President, Mr. Wilson proclaimed as his theory the principle of pacifism in the most emphatic manner possible by selecting as Secretary of State Mr. Bryan, who declared that as long as he was in office America would never fight. In dealing with Mexico, Mr. Wilson proclaimed as a theory the right of Mexicans to make as much disturbance and shed as much blood as they pleased without interference. He suffered himself to be offered as a candidate for re-election by his party on the theory that he would keep us out of war. A man who in theory was a pacifist he kept throughout the war as Secretary of War to be the administrative head of the greatest army America ever raised. He urged upon Europe "Peace without victory," with the result which his political opponent, Mr. Hughes, has described as "Victory without peace." Throughout the war he showed his chief interest not in the practical overcoming of the enemy by arms but in the proclamation of a programme of Fourteen Points as a theoretic basis for peace. Finally, he bound up his own fortune and the fortune of his party with the theoretical proposal for a League of Nations which he has declined to modify, which he has failed so far to persuade his country to accept, and which he desires to be the subject of a great and solemn referendum.

Although his theory has not always been fulfilled in his practice, although he surpassed all other Presidents in resorting to the use of commissions, although he intrusted to leaders in "big business" some of the most re

sponsible positions in arming and provisioning the country in war, although he did intervene in Mexico by bombarding one of its ports, although he allowed Mr. Bryan to retire and then asked Congress to declare war, and although when the time for making peace came even friends and supporters of his were disconcerted by the contradiction between the theories of the Fourteen Points and the accomplished facts, nevertheless it may be said that incident after incident cumulatively show Mr. Wilson's Administration to be based on theories.

It is such incidents in the record of the party and its leader during these past eight years that the people remember. They have a general impression of a stimulating personality who for a time was the leader of the political thought of the world. They think of the party in the terms of the record of this leader.

To that record there are at least three kinds of response:

First, there are those who are convinced that the Democratic party's theories as expounded by Mr. Wilson are good and should be approved; that whatever results have been inconsistent with those theories, and consequently bad, are to be deplored but are due not to the party and its leader but to opposition abroad and at home.

Second, there are those who believe that the theories are good but regard the results inconsistent with those theories as due to some failure on the part of the party and its leader.

Third, there are those who believe the theories are bad in themselves, that some of the results have been consequently bad because they have been attempts to exalt bad theories as ideals, with consequent disaster, and that some of the results have been good for the very reason that they have happened in spite of the theorists.

Those who believe that the country needs a further stimulus of theory, as well as those who believe that an Administration should be judged by the doctrines it professes rather than by its achievements, and who believe in the Wilson doctrines professed by the Democratic party and its candidate, will naturally vote for Mr. Cox.

Those who believe that the Wilson theories are lofty but who deplore at the same time the many results inconsistent with those theories will be sistent with those theories will be divided. Some of these will vote for Mr. Cox on the ground that the Administration was a victim of circumstances it could not control. Others will vote against Mr. Cox on the ground that

the Administration was the victim of its own weakness when it compromised its convictions.

Those who believe that the theories of the Administration, and in particular of Mr. Wilson, as, indorsed by his party and his party's candidate, have been and are unsound, and that whatever good results were achieved were in spite of those theories and not because of them, will vote for Mr. Harding; that is, they will try another steward, and will look for the new steward in the party that is temperamentally less inclined to profess theories and more inclined to undertake practical tasks.

TALKING RED AND

A

SEEING RED

N unwelcome by-product in the advance of science and invention has been to make easy cowardly murder masquerading under the pretense of political revolution. It is unfortunately far from difficult for such dastardly enemies of law and order as those who planned and executed the Wall Street explosion in New York City to procure dangerous substances such as nitroglycerine and dynamite. These are used commercially in enor mous quantities, as in excavations for buildings and in the oil-fields. Restrictions and laws, however stringent, do not prevent illicit or careless sale, or small thefts by which large quantities may be accumulated. It needs only moderate skill to handle such explosives safely and to arrange devices for their explosion at a given moment. Detection is difficult either before or after the crime. One lesson of the recent horror, therefore, is closer supervision over the distribution and use of explosives.

But there is an immense amount of inflammatory and explosive material other than dynamite in the world just now-heated argument, class hatred, the poisonous "direct action" appeal, the denunciation of all government, the undermining of democracy in favor of proletariat imperialism. The "intellectuals" who play with these rhetorical explosives in order to exploit their glib conceit and glowing oratory are morally guilty of the acts to which their words incite ignorant and reckless hearers. The hand may be that of a wild assassin while the impulse may be the heated brain of a theorist who would never endanger his own safety by overt acts.

On the other hand, there is always