Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

MEETING OF THE FRENCH AND ITALIAN PREMIERS AT AIX-LES-BAINS
M. Millerand and Signor Giolitti face each other in the center, the latter with hat in hand;
M. Barrère, French Ambassador to Italy, is at the left

nations have been growing apart. The
French are indignant at any signs of
Italian desire to renew relations with
Germany, and especially at Italian in-
dulgence towards Bolshevist Russia.
Just now the French discern the fine
Italian hand behind the revival of talk
in Austria favorable to union with Ger-
many. On their part, the Italians assert
more loudly than ever that the French
are increasingly jealous of Italian pres
tige in the Mediterranean, apparently
growing far more rapidly than theirs-
for is not Italy now intrenched on the
Tripolitan coast in Africa, on the
Adalian coast in Asia Minor, and on
the island of Rhodes; and, by her pos-
session of Trieste, Pola, Istria, and
some of the islands, has she not really
made the Adriatic Sea an Italian lake
even without Fiume?

Fortunately for France and Italy, the men at the heads of the two Govern. ments look beyond the things of the moment. They see a future of unrest, perhaps of peril, for Europe unless there is a good understanding between the two foremost Latin countries. Such an understanding, it is announced, was reached at the Aix-les-Bains interview between M. Millerand and Signor Giolitti. It is to the effect that, as to immediately pressing issues, France agrees to give Italy a freer hand as regards Fiume, and Italy agrees to "stay put" as regards Germany and Russia.

THE ARMISTICE BETWEEN
POLAND AND THE REDS

HE armistice agreement between the Bolshevist Government and Poland was signed on October 12, to take effect on October 18, and will presumably be followed by a peace treaty in agreement with the armistice terms. The

armistice is described by M. Joffe, of the Soviet delegates, as the Soviet delegates, as " a peace without victory and without vanquished."

Under the terms of the armistice each Government recognizes the other as having power to make a treaty, and it is agreed that neither shall give support to foreign military action against the other or itself intervene in any way in the internal affairs of the other. A neutral strip of territory of fifteen kilometers is established, and the lines laid

gel. No doubt it is with that in mind that it is reported that France is sending General Weygand to support and advise General Wrangel, while London despatches state that the British commander of Kut-el-Amara fame, General C. V. F. Townshend, is on his way to the Crimea with the same purpose. Neither France nor Great Britain can afford to see a collapse of the antiBolshevist effort in the East.

A singular incident is the occupation of Vilna, the capital of Lithuania, by an "outlaw" or insurrectionist armymade up of Lithuanian regiments of the Polish army (that is, as we understand it, Lithuanians by nationality but Poles by race) who believe that Vilna should belong to Poland or should at least have the right of self-determination. This was all but simultaneous with the Polish announcement that negotiations with Lithuania concerning an armistice and a line of demarcation between the armies of the two countries had been concluded. The situation at Vilna is in some ways comparable to that brought about by d'Annunzio at Fiume.

[graphic]

THE ENGLISH PRIME MINISTER ON THE IRISH SITUATION

down indicate the boundary-lines be- MR. LLOYD GEORGE took the occa

tween Poland and White Russia and the Ukraine. These lines apparently give the cities of Dvinsk to Poland and Rovno to Russia. No financial settlement is included in the armistice agreement. The preliminary peace treaty must be ratified within fifteen days after it is signed. The armistice is for twenty-one days, and if it is not broken. after forty-eight hours by either side will renew itself automatically.

All the indications are that Trotsky and Lenine have been anxious for peace on the Polish front, as they well may be, after the reverses of their armies following the brilliant Polish attack which drove a dangerous wedge through the Russian center. Under French military advice, the Poles have abstained from such an advance as would make their own line thin because of too broad extension. They hold an excellent position for defense and for striking at vulnerable Russian points.

One danger of an armistice between Poland and Russia is that it leaves the Reds free to send reinforcements against General Wrangel in the Crimean region. Wrangel has had notable successes, including, according to a late report, the capture of over 25,000 prisoners. France appreciates the danger of Red reinforcements against Wran

sion of a recent address in Wales to speak very definitely on the Irish situation. He does not believe in Viscount Grey's Irish Dominion plan; he rejects the idea of complete Irish independence, and he declares:

You cannot permit the country to be debased into a condition of complete anarchy, where a small body of assassins, real murder gangs, are dominating the country and terrorizing it, and making it impossible for reasonable men to come together to consider the best way of governing their country.

What, then, is his constructive plan? He insists that the Home Rule Bill now before Parliament will be carried through by the Coalition, and that it is the best and fairest programme available. Mr. Asquith may call it "a paltry compromise," but it gives the Irish people control of education, of courts, of licensing, of most taxation, of housing, of railways, of land receipts, and of much else.

As to the Dominion plan, Mr. Lloyd George declared that Dominion Home Rule without power to have an army and navy would be a farce, and that an Irish army and navy meant conscription in England, for "you cannot have an army of 500,000 or 600,000 men in Ireland, commanded by Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins, who vowed destruc

tion to this country, and only an army of about 100,000 here." Ireland, he pointed out, was a serious peril in the World War. "And we are to trust to luck in our next war! Was there ever such lunacy proposed by anybody?" Nor could he find "a single Irishman who has authority to speak for his countrymen who will say that he accepts Dominion Home Rule."

Much curiosity had existed as to what the Prime Minister would say about the "reprisals" in Ireland. He made a scathing indictment of the murdering and wounding of 280 policemen in Ireland in one year, not in fair fight, but mostly from lurking ambush, and commented: "I never read or heard a word of protest from the Sinn Feiners in Ireland, not a single syllable." Without justifying reprisals, he asked, "Are the police in Ireland to stand up to be shot down like dogs in the streets without any attempt at defending themselves?"

Mr. Lloyd George's address was brilliant, human, and moving. But we are afraid that it does not solve the Irish question.

[graphic]

FAMINE IN CHINA

LA

AST July a friend of The Outlook, traveling in China, reported a widespread drought. Throughout the populous provinces and vast plains of Shantung and Honan, as far as the eye could see, there was not a blade of grain in sight.

The inevitable result has followed. Some thirty-odd million people are starving. There are a thousand deaths a day. Whole families, it is said, have been self-poisoned and children have been sold to escape slow starvation. The condition is serious; the need of relief urgent.

Japan will supply 500,000 bushels of rice, a despatch from Tokyo announces, to relieve the famine. China, it is added, will pay for the rice through a loan.

But China can ill afford to pay for loans. She needs gifts. The Red Cross is the intermediary. It is taking immediate measures to relieve the famine. Mr. Crane, our Minister at Peking, has made the sensible suggestion that any funds contributed be used in promoting public works, thereby giving employment to many famine sufferers.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

International

THE IRISH TROUBLES-REFUGEES LEAVING BALBRIGGAN, COUNTY DUBLIN, AFTER THE SACKING OF THE TOWN BY "BLACK AND TANS" AS A REPRISAL FOR THE KILLING OF TWO POLICEMEN

in 1911 in accordance with the will of Miss Caroline Phelps-Stokes for

The erection or improvement of tenement-house dwellings in New York City; and for educational purposes, in the education of Negroes both in Africa and in the United States, North American Indians, and needy deserving white students.

The trustees have devoted two-thirds

of the income of the Fund to the advancement of education and one-third to housing improvement. In education it has dispensed its philanthropy as far as possible through existing institutions of proved experience and of assured future stability. To this end it has made scientific and exhaustive investigation. Of Negro educational institutions alone it has, in co-operation with the United States Bureau of Education, investigated nearly seven hundred and fifty. These are supported by private charity to the extent of $3,000,000 annually; their plants and capital are estimated at no less than $28,000,000. And yet, says the report, "not a few of these institutions were found to be actually fraudulent ventures, while many were so inefficient as to be unworthy of support."

"In view of the frequency of the terms academy' and 'college' and university,'" the report continues, "it is important to note that over seventyfive per cent of the pupils of these institutions are elementary. In spite of the large private contributions mentioned above, the number of pupils in private schools is only seven per cent of all children attending elementary schools. It is apparent, therefore, that the masses of the colored people cannot

be educated in private schools, but must be educated mainly in public or taxsupported schools."

We quote from the report's conclu

sion :

Among the good Negro schools are some which have achieved international fame for pioneer service in democratizing education. But the majority are following the traditional school curriculum with too exclusive emphasis on bookish studies. . . .

Democracy in the content of education demands that the curriculum shall impart culture through knowledge and practice related to the farm, the shop, the office, and, above all, the home....

Education must be closely related to the actual life of those who have to be taught. It must take account of their instincts, experience, and interests, as distinct from those of people living in quite different conditions. Its aim must be to equip them for the life which they have to live. Hence the main emphasis must be put, not on a purely literary curriculum such as still prevails in many schools, but on training in such necessities of actual life as health, hygiene, the making and keeping of a home, the earning of a livelihood, and civic knowledge and spirit.

During the war, so we learn, the officials of the Fund were constantly called on for help in solving educational problems connected with Negro troops (most of the officials of the Fund were in active war service); and that both during and after the war the Fund cooperated with the War Time Committee of the Churches and the War Work Council of the Y. M. C. A.; finally, that it was also instrumental in forming the Inter-Racial Committee, which has organized committees of white and colored men in many communities to co

operate in diminishing race friction. The result is that riots have been averted and newspapers induced more actively to support the increase of educational and health facilities for Negroes.

HOW I SHALL VOTE AND WHY

T

HE response on the part of the one hundred and sixty-eight college presidents who complied with my personal request for information as to their preferences among the Presidential candidates is a courtesy which I greatly appreciate. The result of their replies is reported in this issue of The Outlook. A majority of those who replied not only stated their preferences but also gave the reasons. Though not a college president, I venture to accompany the able and illuminating letters in this issue with a frank statement of two chief reasons why I shall vote for Mr. Harding in the approaching election.

There are some families in which the father is the ruler. He decides all family questions, solves all family problems, and determines all family policies. His wife and children accept his decisions and carry them out more or less cordially.

There are other families in which the father habitually consults with the various members of the family on all questions which concern its well-being. He seeks to ascertain, not merely what are the interests, but also what are the wishes and the opinions of the wife and the children. Even the little children are taken into the family councils.

The first father is an autocrat. He may be a wise or a foolish autocrat, an unselfish or a selfish autocrat, regardful of the interests of all or only of his own interests; but he is an autocrat. The second father is a democrat. The decision reached after consultation may not always be the wisest, the results may not always be even the most satisfactory to the family; but they are reached by the democratic method.

Temperamentally, I am a democrat. I believe in the democratic spirit and the democratic method-in the family, in the school, in the church, in industry, and in the State. I believe in this method not because it always secures the best immediate results, but because it always tends to produce the best characters. Children, pupils, industrial workers, citizens, are by this method trained to self-government; and selfgovernment-that is, self-control-is essential in every virtue. I believe in

it because it always tends to promote contentment in a community. It is not true that all just government is founded on the consent of the governed; but it is true that peaceful government and the spirit of contentment in the citizens are always founded on the consent of the governed. I believe in it because a frank, full, and free conference participated in by all the parties interested in the organization to which they belong almost invariably produces a wiser plan than can be evolved by one autocrat working in solitude, however wise he may be.

I shall vote for Mr. Harding for the reason which Mr. Herbert Parsons, formerly a prominent Republican leader, who has recently declared for Mr. Cox, assigns for voting against Mr. Harding. "Mr. Harding," says Mr. Parsons, "has no constructive programme, and says it is folly to be specific." What Mr. Harding did say was:

Men ask me for a specific plan. I have none, because it was the specific plan and insistence on it that brought about the scrapping of the Wilson Covenant. It is too big for one man to determine what the plan is going to be. It is my task to so harmonize the views of America that when we do take up a plan all of us can be back of it.

Mr. Harding has no definite plan for a League; but he has a very definite plan for obtaining and harmonizing the views of America, so that when the plan is worked out not merely the President and his party, not merely the Senate and the House of Repre sentatives, but the great mass of the American people shall be back of it. His plan he has thus stated:

What is in my mind is the wisdom of calling into real conference the ablest and most experienced minds of this country, from whatever walks of life they may be derived and without regard to party affiliation, to formulate a definite, practical plan along the lines already indicated for consideration of the controlling foreign Powers. I shall vote for Mr. Harding primarily because I believe that this is the way in which a democratic country should act in dealing with a great crisis. I do not believe that an autocrat, however excellent his intentions, however wise his judgment, should act for the Nation. I believe that the Nation should be inspired to act for itself, and should form the plan as well as put it into execution. For the same reason that I desire to see the head of the family consult with the family, the head of the school with the pupils, the head of the mine or the factory with the workers, I desire to see the head of the Nation consult with the citizens. Miss Follett, in a remarkable book entitled

"The New State," reviewed in these pages a few years ago, maintained that democracy is not merely government by the majority. Democracy is mutual interest in one another's welfare, mutual regard for one another's wishes, mutual respect for one another's opinions. It means faith in one another. Democracy is a "Get Together Club." It is founded on the fundamental principle that out of a fair-minded, honest-hearted comparison of different views and opinions a new plan can be created different from and wiser than any plan which has been submitted to the conference. Democracy is nothing if it is not creative. Mr. Wilson's endeavor to create in the solitude of his own study a plan for a brotherhood of nations, and then submit it complete for acceptance, was inevitably a failure. It failed, not merely because it was inconsistent with the spirit if not with the letter of our Constitution, but because it was inconsistent with that faith in his fellow-men which is essential to democracy and without which no man can interpret or represent his fellow-men. My primary objection to the League of Nations is not that it is a bad plan, but that it is not the Nation's plan, and no attempt has been made, either through Congress, or through public conventions, or through the press, or through private consultations, to secure any participation of the people or their representatives in forming the plan.

But I also think the plan as proposed by Mr. Wilson and adopted by Mr. Cox is full of peril not only to America, but to the peace of the world. This plan is, in brief, a military alliance of the civilized nations of the world to protect each other from aggression. This purpose is embodied in Article X:

The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In case of any such aggression, or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the Council shall advise upon means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

If America enters the League and subscribes to this article, it promises to join with other nations in preserving as against external aggression the territorial integrity and political independence of all the members of the League. I object to this plan because:

1. The Congress of 1920 has no authority to pledge the Congress of 1922 to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation. To make promises which we are not sure will be fulfilled is immoral

for the individual and still more im- foreign Powers for safeguarding the moral for a nation.

2. Our fathers were wise in not allowing one generation to pledge a future generation to a war policy. We must meet our crises with brave hearts, but we must also assume that our sons will not be less brave than we are. We have no moral right to pledge for them beforehand the sacrifice of their lives.

3. To create an allied army and put it under the control of an international committee or to allow an international committee to call at will an allied army into existence is not a wise method to promote international peace. It will be more likely to promote war.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties, both Mr. Cox and Mr. Harding, believe in an international association. Mr. Harding has expressed his faith on this subject very clearly. "I am in favor of drafting, revising, or remaking an association of nations to maintain civilization without surrendering anything we hold dear in our United States of America." Observe the words "to maintain civilization."

Both parties agree in favoring stated meetings of an International Conference, democratic in its character, to consider international problems and reach, if possible, international agreements. Both parties agree in favoring the creation of an International Court to which civilized nations may submit such questions as may arise between them. To substitute the appeal, to reason for the appeal to force has the sanction of all thoughtful men in all civilized nations.

But suppose a barbaric nation which disregards treaties, discards international law, disowns all moral obligations, glorifies war, and knows no other principle than "might makes right" again attacks civilization. With the history of Germany just behind us, with the threats of the Bolsheviki sounding in our ears, with the unprovoked massacre of unprotected Armenians fresh in our memories, we cannot say that such an uprising of barbarism is impossible. This is a real danger, and one which we have to consider, if not prepare for. Mr. Cox accepts Mr. Wilson's proposal to form now a military alliance of the civilized nations prepared to meet the assault of barbarism whenever it shall occur. Senators Johnson and

Borah propose to do nothing now, but trust the future to meet future dangers when, if ever, they appear. Mr. Harding proposes, when elected, to call into conference some of the ablest and most experienced minds in America to cooperate with him and the Senate in forming a plan to be submitted to the

future. Of these three plans, Mr. Harding's seems to me the wisest. I had hoped against hope that President Wilson and the Senate could get together

on

some plan which would at least diminish the perils of the proposed military alliance. That hope is gone. The League has not secured peace, order, League has not secured peace, order, or justice in Europe. Mr. Wilson's scheme has thus far resulted only in bitter disappointment. I shall vote for Mr. Harding because I believe that his proposal for dealing with this problem by conference and co-operation promises a better result.

A hundred and thirty years ago the people of the thirteen American colonies formed a Union of States. This Union was formed not for them but by them, through their representatives, after three years of deliberation and discussion, and it was a far wiser and more comprehensive document than any man or small committee of men could have produced. I wish to see the United States take its part in a similar democratic. fashion in forming, not a similar union of World Powers, but an association of World Powers for a similar purpose: To "establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." If we wish to do for the world what our fathers did for this continent, we can hope to do it only as we possess the spirit and adopt the method of our fathers, the spirit of democracy and the method of democracy. And I shall vote for Mr. Harding because he believes that this problem is too big for any man to solve, and because I think his proposal for national conference and co-operation in producing a plan seems to me full of promise for a brotherhood of nations which will be more pacific and more practicable because democratic in the method of its preparation than the Wilson League of Nations. LYMAN ABBOTT.

THE DEATH OF PRIVACY

66

O longer," said the Young-Old Philosopher, stopping in for a chat the other morning, "is there any privacy in the world."

"Why, what do you mean?" we said. "Only a few days ago we read an article by a man who contended that he could be more alone in a great city like New York, when he chose, than anywhere else. He did not except, as we recall, even the Desert of Sahara."

"Oh, I grant you that," answered

our friend. "But I am alluding, not to hermit-like withdrawal from the rushing world of affairs now and then. I . refer to the ordinary wholesome peace and quiet we all need practically every day of our lives-and do not get. I passed a great church this morning while the funeral of a certain wellknown motion-picture actress was being conducted, and there were vast crowds around the doors, drawn thither through curiosity and the magnet of publicity, scrambling and shoving one another as only a New York mob seems able to do; and as the casket was borne from the church I saw, to my amazement, a motion-picture man on the opposite curb diligently turning his crank. Even in death that poor young woman was unable to escape the pitiless eye of the camera! One would have thought that, the final curtain lowered, she might have been allowed to be taken to her grave with some semblance of reverence. But no! she was too popular to be lost to the movie fans' just yet, and on every screen of the city to-night there will be thrown, as news, so many feet of film picturing the last pilgrimage her poor body was to make in this world.

"Our sanctities are gone. You can shut off your telephone, yes; but you cannot prevent that little bell from ringing, though you can refuse, of course, to answer it. The airplane floats above the most remote golf links nowadays, and where you could only a few years ago take a house in the far back country and put a hedge around yourself, be miles from the railway and the flying motors that make the highway hum, you cannot now escape the vigilant and prying air-machine which can swoop down upon the loneliest garden or the most desolate stretch of shore. The invasion of our privacy by all sorts of modern inventions lends terror to new brain discoveries. The war was fought by unseen foes; but never once did the enemy fail to know, through scout planes, just where the opposing army lay in wait.

"I sometimes sigh for the old hushed days of our forefathers. Stage-coaches may have been cumbersome and uncomfortable, but it must have been a pleasure to live without being constantly stared at. Life is now one long veranda without the dignity of the simplest concealing balustrade; and if the hour ever comes-as, alas! it threatens to do-when one's innermost thoughts will be an open book to the rest of the world, then, surely, I will give up! For I do like a hedge once in a while, don't you?"

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic]
« PředchozíPokračovat »