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

TH

AND WHY

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 in the organization to which they belong almost invariably produces a wiser plan than can beevolved 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 Representatives, 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 pri marily 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 Nafor 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 Doral

20 Movin

we Do

Te DC

h To

"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, mu. tual regard for one another's wishes, mutual respect for one another's opinions. It means faith in one another. Democ racy 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 opin-de ions 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,H2 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 under-
take to respect and preserve as against
external aggression the territorial in-
tegrity and existing political independ-
ence of all members of the League. In
case of any such aggression, or in case
of
any threat or danger of such aggres-
sion, 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 terri torial 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

W

T

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. Har ding 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, or justice in Europe. Mr. Wilson's scheme has thus far resulted only in 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." 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

TО longer," said the Young-Old "O Philosopher, stopping in for a chat the other morning, "is 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 a 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.

66

Our sanctities are gone. You can shut off your telephone, yes; but you cannot prevent that little bell from ringing, though you 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.

66

"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?"

I

TN September the Editor-in-Chief of The Outlook sent to virtually every college president in the country a letter which, except for details not necessary to be recounted here, was as follows:

Never in my lifetime, except perhaps in the Presidential election immediately preceding the Civil War, has there seemed to me to be as much confusion as now in the public mind respecting political issues. For this reason I am asking a number of college presidents to co-operate in a plan to furnish guidance to a perplexed community.

Since the foundation of the country, the college, with its later development, the university, has had a special place of influence in America. Particularly has it molded public affairs. This has been manifest in many ways. For example, of our twenty-seven Presidents eighteen have been college graduates. There is, therefore, during a Presidential campaign, special significance in the political judgment, individual and composite, of the heads of American colleges and universities.

Your vote for President ought to be more than a vote. It is, or can be made, a word of leadership. I should be glad if you would make use of The Outlook as a medium for conveying that word to the public.

Yours sincerely,

LYMAN ABBOTT.

The response was generous. One hundred and sixty-eight college presidents, representing every section of the country, North, South, East, and West, and all but ten States of the Union, recorded their choice among the candidates for President of the United States. Although The Outlook promised each college president that the secrecy of his ballot would be preserved if he wished it, the great majority sent in their votes without requesting secrecy.

Almost one hundred and forty college presidents are therefore recorded. by name and college in the accompanying table. The arrangement is by college alphabetically.

Of itself the total vote arithmetically may not be significant. The straw vote, even when cast by so influential a body as the college presidents of America, decides nothing; and, in spite of the cartoonist whose picture accompanies this article, may be no guide, and is by no means always trustworthy as an indication of the course of public opinion. The judgment, however, of the individuals here recorded should have weight. There are reasons which sway

the mind of the scholar and the educator which are not always sufficiently considered by the ordinary citizen. One of the most eminent of college presidents, a man influential not only in academic spheres but also in practical affairs, who desires for sufficient reasons that his name be not mentioned, has written giving the reasons for his vote, to which he appends the following reflection:

I appreciate the compliment of your asking for views from college presidents, but I doubt whether our hardheaded fellow-countrymen will be appreciably affected by the opinions given. At the outset of the World

HE'S WITH US AGAIN! From Dorothy Jenkins, Denver, Colorado

War the Kaiser published the opinions of some eighty-three (I think that was the number) German professors who unanimously supported him in his aggressive attitude. Doubtless this move had its effect on the docile German mind, trained to reverence for educational fiat and governmental direction-our Americans, however, take from their college leaders the educational training they desire, but they don't feel called on to follow them politically.

It is not with any expectation that our readers will follow these college presidents that we publish this vote, but rather with the expectation that they will be guided and enlightened not only by the vote itself, but by the reasons which accompany it.

People who are mathematically inclined may be interested in the fact that among the college presidents Harding polls 85 votes, Cox 63, Watkins 3, and Debs 1, and 16 undecided. Many readers may be surprised that so large

a proportion-nearly ten per cent of the total vote is recorded as undecided. In the time elapsed since these ballots were mailed, however, that percentage has probably been reduced.

GENERAL DISAPPOINTMENT

To perpetrate a bull, there is one thing present in all these letters, namely, the absence of enthusiasm. Indeed, this very negative quality in a number of cases becomes positive disappointment and occasionally rises into disgust. Perhaps the extreme expression of this feeling comes in a letter from the presi dent of one of the best-known educa tional institutions in the country. He expresses himself the more freely be cause he knows we will observe his request to preserve his anonymity. He wrote, explaining an inclination to vote for Harding in spite of his indecision, as follows:

Will have to hold but one nostril to vote for Harding, but two if I vote for Cox.

In general, however, the disappointment is expressed more mildly. Thus President Silas Evans, whose resigna tion took effect almost simultaneously with the mailing of his letter, writes from Occidental College (Los Angeles, California):

Like many another citizen, I openly confess to be politically confused. I have an abiding faith in the heart and purpose of Ameri ca, but a bewildering sense of humiliation in its present political morale and leaders. We seem weary of the virile idealism and exacting statesmanship of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and are apparently content with the procedure and tolerant of the tactics of our recent political conventions. The conventions and their candidates were both a popular disappointment.

I prefer the platform of the Democratic party. I have a sense of shame in reading the Republican planks on Armenia, Mexico, and the League of Nations. Yet, to illustrate my political confusion, after taking a general perspective of the situation, I may, withal, vote the Republican ticket, espe cially if the drift and spirit gathers a larger hope than at present, that the Republican party will meet America's obligation and responsibility in an ethical way. I shall vote for Harding or Cox, and in either case shall ask God to forgive me.

Not to imply cynicism, I believe the issues and men are quite up to the average, but so very far short of the requirements of our day. The next campaign will give us a newer and better reaction, which will lift us to