While there has been no great naval fight, the fleets of the Allies have accomplished what they were intended for. They have kept the seas open for English and French and neutral ships. For a country like England, which is dependent on the sea for food supplies and for bringing up reinforcements, this is indeed an important service.

It is also a deadly blow to German economic life. The French and English steamship lines-except as they have been crippled by the requisition of their best ships for military purposes-are operating almost normal.

at

Many of the French and English factories can be kept open, while unemployment in Germany must have reached tragic proportions.

LOUVAIN

During this fourth week of the war the German army added luster to its traditions of victory. But in the Franco-Prussian War, which established the German Empire, and on which all German military traditions are based, the Germans observed the rules of the Kriegspiele. No amount of victory will remove the tarnish which the massacre at Louvain has brought to their arms.

Both France and Germany refused at the Hague Conference to subscribe to the prohibition against dropping bombs in fortified cities, which was proposed by England, who had not at that time begun building flyingmachines. So, no matter how many women and children were blown to pieces, nor how

many diplomats were disturbed, I believe that the air-ship attacks on Antwerp and Paris were technically" correct."

But for the wholesale executions of noncombatants and the wanton burning of a large part of the defenseless town of Louvain there is not even a technical excuse. Even if we accept the German account, the affair was unpardonably barbarous.

No doubt the great mass of the German people are just as horrified as we at this act of vandalism. But if their official representatives continue such practices, it will be continually harder for any civilized being to maintain neutrality.

ENGLAND AND THE WAR

In a way, Great Britain is less closely involved in this war than, the Continental countries. Only the very rich can afford to have their sons become army officers. And, as with us, only the poor enlist as privates. The big middle class and the more fortunate workers do not have relatives at the front. Universal conscription on the Continent means that almost every family has a son or father on the firing line.

But that the English are stirred by this war as never before is shown by the calling in of the native troops from India. The attitude of the Englishmen who have served in the colonies towards this move is well illustrated by Kipling's South African story "A White Man's War." Dark as things looked for the Empire at the beginning of the Boer War, the English decided not to risk letting the "natives" get the habit of killing white men. After all, there is no great difference in appearance between Germans and English. If the Sikhs and Ghurkas are brought into this campaign, there is danger that they may not recognize this difference. If they get it into their heads that they are good enough to kill white men, they may some time take a shot at their English masters. The decision to bring them to Europe will be regarded by all "colonials," active or retired, as a counsel of desperation.

But the news will be received with greater regret by all those good people in England who have been supporting foreign missions. The lessons in applied Christianity which these heathen will get on the Continent will hardly help the cause of Christ-the Prince of Peace-in India.

With the war monopolizing the front pages of the newspapers and a good deal of inside space as well, politics has been relegated to the background. Nevertheless, during the past month in a number of States there have been political events of too much importance to be overlooked by those voters who do not intend to let even such a great counter-attraction as a European war hinder the proper performance of their duty at the polls next November.

In Wisconsin the event of greatest political interest has been the double defeat of the La Follette forces at the State primaries by the Republicans and the Roosevelt Progressives. In the first place, the La Follette men lost the gubernatorial nomination to Emanuel L. Philipp, the candidate of the old-line Republican conservatives. The La Follette group was further disappointed by the victory of Governor McGovern over LieutenantGovernor Thomas Morris in the contest for the Senatorial nomination. Mr. Morris was Senator La Follette's choice, and Mr. McGovern is the man who took the Wisconsin delegation from La Follette at the last Republican Presidential Convention and gave it to Mr. Roosevelt. The Wisconsin Democrats chose as their candidate for Governor John A. Aylward, supposed to have the favor of President Wilson. His rival was John C. Carel, who was an unsuccessful candidate in 1912 also.

In Kansas both Republicans and Democrats have included a woman suffrage plank in their platforms, and the Democrats, after a bitter fight, have come out for National prohibition. In Michigan the three large parties have already picked their candidates for the Governorship, the Republicans having chosen ex-Governor Charles S. Osborn, the Democrats Woodbridge N. Ferris, the present Governor, while the Progressive candidate is Henry R. Pattengill.

The contest for the Republican nomination for United States Senator from Ohio was somewhat spectacular and very close, former Lieutenant-Governor W. G. Harding winning over Joseph B. Foraker by a narrow margin. All three parties have named their entries in the gubernatorial race, the Republican choice being George Willis, the Demo

cratic selection J. M. Cox, while the Progressives have nominated James A. Garfield, former Secretary of the Interior. It is expected that the fight will be a hot one and that the prohibition issue may decide it. Willis is expected to declare for State-wide prohibition, but Cox, who has fathered certain measures of restriction, such as the one to limit the number of saloon licenses issued, may catch a share of the prohibition vote for himself.

STATE POLITICS: NEW YORK

The situation in New York is tangled. All hope of fusion between Progressives and Independent Republicans seems to have vanished. The Progressives have named a ticket with ex-State Senator Frederick M. Davenport running for Governor, and Bainbridge Colby for United States Senator. The Republicans and Democrats made no nominations, but confined themselves to adopting platforms and naming fifteen candidates for delegates-at-large to the Constitutional Convention next year. The Demo. cratic Conference, however, indorsed the administration of Governor Glynn, and he seems likely to be the machine candidate. United States Ambassador to Germany James W. Gerard is apparently developing strength as an aspirant for the Senatorial nomination.

The injection of the anti-Murphy element of Independent Democrats into the situation is likely to make things interesting, as these dissatisfied ones have put a strong ticket in the field, with John A. Hennessy running for Governor, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt up for Senator. Political observers are anxiously waiting to see whether Governor Glynn will choose to reply to the verbal broadsides which Mr. Hennessy is expected to discharge at him, or remain silent.

The Republican nominee for Governor in New York, according to present indications, will be chosen from among three men-Job E. Hedges, who had the nomination in 1912; ex-State Senator Harvey D. Hinman, who coquetted with the Progressives for a while; and Charles Whitman, District Attorney of New York County. Judging from surface indications at the Republican Convention,

Mr. Whitman is far stronger than his two competitors.

The announcement of ex-Governor William Sulzer that he will enter the Progressive primaries and "beat Davenport two to one lends more variety to an already muddled situation. Apparently New York is in for a political Donnybrook Fair.

The action of the Republican State Chairman, William Barnes, in announcing that he will not be a candidate for re-election to his present position has perhaps caused more discussion in New York than any event in the political affairs of the State for several weeks. Mr. Barnes's friends say that, inasmuch as the State Chairman had previously declared that he would hold his position only long enough to thwart Mr. Roosevelt's plans, this announcement means that he considers the rout of the Roosevelt faction in State politics complete. On the other hand, many Progressives look upon the Barnes retirement under fire as a great political victory, which they declare will prove to be a very important factor in the complete defeat of bossism in New York. Those who are familiar with Mr. Barnes's record are asking what change in machine Republicanism in New York his pro forma retirement is likely to make when he still controls the State Committee through his personal henchmen. He was not Chairman when he successfully led the Republican machine against Governor Hughes.

A NEW

INDIAN QUESTION

Should the Nation or the State have jurisdiction over the Indians? Emphatically, the Nation. What is now going on in Oklahoma goes to prove it.

In 1908 the Federal Government surrendered a large part of its jurisdiction over the property of the Five Civilized Tribes to the probate courts of Oklahoma. At that time

the Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes owned one-half of the land in Oklahoma, worth approximately seven hundred and fifty million dollars. It is estimated that more than one-half that estate has been dissipated and the Indians have nothing to show for it. Mr. M. L. Mott, tribal attorney for the Creek. Indians, made a vigorous protest and predicted the wholesale looting of these Indians estates. The same view was expressed by Senator La Follette and others in Congress. These arguments were characterized by the Oklahoma Delegation in Congress as an insult

to their State. It was contended that the State courts could and would protect Indian minors. In 1912 Mr. Mott, after an investigation of the court records in eight of the counties comprising the Creek Nation, brought to Congress a report showing that the court costs and attorneys' and guardians' fees alone had consumed twenty per cent of the value of the estates probated, as compared with less than three per cent in the case of the estates of white minors probated in the same courts. The Hon. Warren K. Morehead, a member of the Board of Indian Commissioners, in 1913 made an extended investigation strongly corroborating the report of Mr. Mott. The Oklahoma Delegation in Congress at first denied the truth of this report, and requested the Governor of the State of Oklahoma to make an investigation. Governor's investigation verified the Mott report. The loss to these Indians, however, through the courts was the smallest part of the plunder, for many other methods were resorted to in the looting of minors' estates.

The

Up to this time the protests against the Oklahoma situation had come largely from outside the State. At last, however, a friendly voice is heard from an official from within the State. Miss Kate Barnard, the Oklahoma Commissioner of Charities and Correction, has recently issued a circular letter appealing to the citizenship of her own State and of the Nation for assistance in protecting the one-third of the Indian population of that State which has not already been despoiled of its property. She boldiy charges the existence of a conspiracy extending from Oklahoma to Washington having for its purpose the plunder of the remaining thirty thousand restricted Indians.

The Department of Charities and Correction, over which Miss Barnard presides, is the only branch of government, State or Federal, clothed with legal authority to intervene in the State courts on behalf of Indian minors. Through her activity and the cooperation of Federal employees two years ago Miss Barnard intervened on behalf of a large number of Indian minors, forced dishonest guardians to pay back to their wards many thousands of dollars which they had squandered, and thus was in a fair way to put a wholesome check upon the programme of graft and corruption practiced through the probate courts. Then, she charges, because of her activities, influences hostile to the Indians working through the

State Legislature wrecked her Department by defeating appropriations necessary to employ attorneys to appear in the courts. She charges that the same influences which reached and controlled the State Legislature of Oklahoma have reached and controlled Congress and the present administration of Indian affairs; and in proof of the latter charge she cites two provisions of the Indian Bill for the fiscal year 1915 which were incorporated at the instance of the Oklahoma Delegation and indorsed by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. One of these provisions removes the two civil service heads of the administration of the Five Civilized Tribes and replaces them by one politicalappointee who is likely to owe his position to the Oklahoma Delegation. The other provision reduces the sum heretofore available for civil service employees needed to protect the interests of the Indians and substitutes an appropriation for Federal probate attorneys outside the civil service who are appointed also with the indorsement of the Oklahoma Delegation.

CAN THE STATE

PROTECT THE INDIANS ?

The Commissioner of Indian Affairs claims that he has secured the adoption of a plan of co-operation between these Federal probate attorneys and the State courts of Oklahoma which will fully protect Indian minors in the future. Miss Barnard, on the other hand, points out the absolute lack of jurisdiction of the Federal proba e attorneys to appear in the State courts, except with the sufferance of the county judges, who, it is charged, have been largely responsible for the wrongs complained of; and she declares that nothing can be expected from Federal attorneys appointed through influences hostile to the interest of the Indians, even if they had jurisdiction. She declares that the appropriation of eightyfive thousand dollars by the Federal Government to pay these attorneys to appear in the State courts is an admission to the country in the most public way possible that the courts of Oklahoma cannot be relied on to protect these Indian estates under their jurisdiction; and she appeals to her fellow-citizens to redeem the State's honor by appropriating funds to rehabilitate her Department and to enable it to exercise the protective functions vested in it by the Constitution and the laws of the State, and thereby demonstrate to the country that the property rights of Indian

63

children can and will be protected in that State.

Miss Barnard has lived in Oklahoma most of her life; her father was one of the pioneers; she is a Democrat. She ran ten thousand votes ahead of her ticket at the last election. She has declined a nomination for a third term, in order that she might not be charged with having selfish motives in making this appeal for her Department on behalf of the Indians of her State.

Miss Barnard's appeal is one of the most significant as well as one of the most hopeful recent signs in Indian affairs. The Government made a mistake when it surrendered to the State its jurisdiction over the Indians of Oklahoma. The question is: Can the evils resulting from that mistake be best remedied by the Government's retaking that jurisdiction, or by State legislation providing an adequate probate procedure and supplying appropriations sufficient to make effective the protective arm of the State Department of Charities and Correction? As bearing on that question we may say that history proves that locally elected judges furnish inadequate protection to the individual against injustice sanctioned by local prejudice.

The plan of co-operation between State probate courts and the politically appointed, jurisdictionless Federal probate attorneys by whom the Commissioner of Indian Affairs declares he is now protecting these Indians can have no other effect than to postpone the day of real and effective remedy through either State or Federal legislation. Either the State of Oklahoma should be compelled to enact legislation necessary for the protection of the interests the Government intrusted to its keeping, or the Federal Government should retake the jurisdiction which it mistakenly surrendered.

The fact that the Oklahoma influence has been strong enough to induce a Commissioner of Indian Affairs to indorse the plan of substituting the spoils system for civil service in a State that contains one-third of the Indian population of the country, and where corruption and plunder of Indians is without precedent in the history of the Nation, affords the strongest argument of recent years in favor of removing the Bureau of Indian Affairs from partisan politics.

WAR AND AMERICAN COMMERCE

Very few ship-owners have taken advantage of the new registry legislation by which

Congress has made it possible to put under our flag any foreign-built but Americanowned ships doing a foreign (not coastwise) trade. What is the reason? Briefly, it is because our Navigation Law, so the ship-owners allege, puts ships under American registry at a disadvantage. It is said that the cost of operating an American ship is a third more than that of operating a foreign vessel. This is not only because of higher American wages, but because the officers must be Americans, because the law imposes rules as to seamen's food, and because of certain alleged onerous requirements as to inspection and measurements. It is proposed that as an emergency measure the President should rescind or relax these measures for a time, as he has power to do.

Such a proposal should not be adopted hastily. It is important that our facilities for commerce should be increased at this juncture, but it is at least equally important that the American seaman should be protected. We want our seamen to be decent, self-respecting citizens, skilled in their work, men to be depended upon in the hour of danger. They should therefore be well fed, well paid, and well officered. Congress has just been voting upon a shipping bill drawn for the purpose of protecting American seamen and of insuring safety at sea. That bill is now in conference, and as we write the press despatches state that it is to be deliberately "side-tracked " in order not to interfere with the new registry plan.

The Outlook believes in permitting Americans to buy ships where they will; the prohibition of this has been futile because it has not in the least fostered American ship-building. But The Outlook does not believe in lowering standards for American seamen nor in driving them off the sea to be replaced by Orientals and the lowest-paid workers of eastern Europe. On the contrary, it believes that the laws in their favor and for safety at sea should be radically strengthened. The just-passed Shipping Bill does this, although doubts exist as to the practicability of some of its requirements. Amend it if needed, but do not abandon it.

Another difficulty about registry is said to be the fear of ship-owners that our Government may itself buy ships-the great German liners now in New York, for instance-and engage in the carrying trade. Congress is still, as we write, considering such a measure, an enlargement of the Panama Act per

mitting the United States to own and operate ships. Ship-owners say that it would be impossible to compete with Government-owned ships, because the Government would care nothing about profit and would sell the ships at a loss after the war is over, as it did after the Spanish War. It is urged also by other than ship-owners that it would be internationally embarrassing for our Government to defend the neutrality of such ships if the genuineness of the sale were called in question by a foreign admiralty court after seizure; on the other hand, it is said that foreign war-ships would be less likely to seize a vessel owned by our Government.

Meanwhile Great Britain has kept the seas open to commerce in a truly remarkable way; passengers are coming and going and goods are being shipped in considerable quantities; there seems to be some reason in the assertion of many exporters that the trouble is not so much lack of ships as lack of credit and exchange facilities between the United States and the warring nations.

Above all, what is needed is the formulation of a definite policy which the United States can follow in the building up of its merchant marine, so that this Nation will not again find itself in its present predicament of dependency upon belligerent nations for transportation of passengers and goods across the seas.

FOR PEACE

We do not think that this is a favorable time to urge peace upon the nations engaged in war. But it is a favorable time for making all the necessary preparations to intervene for the sake of peace when the proper time arrives for such intervention. We are therefore heartily in sympathy with the action which the New York Peace Society has taken, as we are with the spirit of its recommendations.

At the suggestion of this Society, a delegation, representing five Peace organizations, has waited upon the President to suggest to him that our Government request the nations signatory to the Hague Convention not involved in the present war, especially the neutral nations of Europe, to unite with our Government in making on the first favorable occasion a joint offer of mediation in the interests of humanity, civilization, and lasting peace." The careful reader will observe that this request is not to be proffered until the Administration thinks the occasion is favorable for proffering it. In presenting the sugges

66