so by producing an impression on the brain and through the brain on the soul of man, I reply, Possibly. I can neither affirm nor deny his hypothesis. But it seems to me a pure hypothesis, and does nothing to affect my conviction that I am more than the sum of all my bodily organs and my life is something more than the sum of all their sensations. And I believe that the fountain and source of this spiritual life is the Infinite Spirit, in whom we live and move and have our being. He is interpreted to us, not by nature and its forces, but by the spirit of man and his aspirations. Prayer is not an endeavor to make this Infi nite Spirit do our bidding and fulfill our will. It is an endeavor to ascertain the will of this Infinite Spirit and fulfill his purpose. His tory is what Hegel has called it, "the carrying out of God's plan." To work with this Infinite Spirit and have some small share in His design, to co-operate with Him in completing the creation which He has begun and which will not be completed until the world and its forces, including the body and all its organs, have become the perfectly obedient servant of the purified and perfect spirit which dwells within the body, is my ambition. LYMAN ABBOTT. Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York. T THE JAPANESE IN CALIFORNIA A POLL OF HAT the question in California is not local but National and international in character is shown by the press comments in all parts of the country. As to existing land conditions the current report of John P. McLaughlin, Labor Commissioner of California, himself violently anti-Japanese," according to the New York" World" (Dem.), indicates, as reported in that paper, that the Japanese own 12,726 acres of land, an increase since 1909 of 1,935 acres. A different estimate made by Dr. Teusler is referred to on another page. There are about 12,000,000 acres of agricultural land in the State. In Mr. McLaughlin's report it is said that Japanese lease 17,596 acres, a decrease since 1909 of 2,698 acres. The Oakland" Tribune" (Rep.) says: "The landholdings of the Japanese in this State [California] are inconsiderable. George Shima is the only large Japanese landowner in California, and the only offense he has committed is making potatoes more abundant and cheaper." As to existing conditions of population the New York "World" adds that the antiJapanese agitators always speak of 'the hordes of Japanese who are pouring into the State." According, however, to the report of the Commissioner of Immigration for 1911 and his bulletin for March, 1912, as stated in the World," the number of Japanese in California decreased 4.933 during the two years and nine months preceding the lastmentioned date. Thus, as a matter of fact, 64 THE PRESS 66 the Japanese population among us is not increasing, or likely to increase," affirms the San Francisco" Chronicle" (Ind.), and adds: The number now here is not large enough to seriously affect any interest. There is no doubt of the existence of all necessary legal power in the Nation to deal with the Japanese question as it sees fit. It will be best for us not to invoke the exercise of that power. We are not suffering in any way which justifies the risk." The Pasadena "News" (Rep.) concludes: Chinese exclusion has not benefited Califor nia. If we permitted a limited influx of the race our horticultural interests would not have to depend so completely on the Japanese, and our housekeeping burdens would be immeasurably lightened. Drat this racial prejudice, this narrow, bigoted point of view, anyway! The treaty of 1911 with Japan says that the Japanese may "own or lease or occupy houses, manufactories, and warehouses and shops," and may "lease land for residential and commercial purposes." In return, in deference to American wishes, the Japanese Government agreed to restrict the emigration of Japanese laborers to the United States. 'Japan has kept faith," avers the New York "Globe" (Rep.). Since 1908 the entry of Japanese at San Francisco has almost ceased, and there has been an actual diminution of the number of Japanese. As Japan has kept faith, so must this country. Faith is not kept when new legislation, practically discriminating against the Japanese as the proposed California legislation would do, is enacted.", But, according to the New York "American" (Dem.), (Dem.), "California is right, legally right, constitutionally right, morally right, ethnologically right, right for her own best interests, right for the best interests of the whole country, including New York, and right for the best interests of all the citizens of this country, including the citizens of New York-even the class of congenital toadies and tories. California is within her State's rights, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, when she decides that individuals who have not been naturalized may not hold land within her confines." Moreover, "California is acting to her own best advantage in making such a law, because the Japanese would not make good citizens and do not make good residents. They are a race which this Nation cannot and should not assimilate. They would inflict upon us another and greater race problem than we have yet dealt with, and we already have race problems which are difficult enough to solve." The " American," which is universally recognized as typical of the sensational press, then details as follows: The Japanese in the numbers in which they are invading California are not only objectionable, they are dangerous. They begin by occu pying a small portion of a district and making themselves there so obnoxious by their personal attitude and Oriental peculiarities that the Caucasian residents of that district soon become willing to sell their properties and leave the section. The Japanese then buy up these depreciated properties at bargain prices and bring in more Japanese to extend the ill effects of their colonization. The Japanese are never on good terms with their Caucasian neighbors. They never employ a Caucasian when they can employ a Japanese. They live encysted in their Orientalism, as a foreign growth within the American body politic, an ever-increasing danger to the well-being of our social and political system. These Japanese are not, and never will be, and never want to be, Americans. Worse than that, they are actively and essentially antagonistic to Ameri can ideas and to the welfare of the American Nation. They are Japanese citizens. More than that, they are Japanese soldiers, and when their numbers become sufficient they may at any time become a Japanese army directed definitely, positively, and powerfully against the Governinent and the people of this country. The exchange of cablegrams between the State Department at Washington and the Foreign Office at Tokyo will not settle the Japanese question of California, remarks the Toledo" Blade" (Prog.), Lecturing the people of the Pacific Coast for interfering in inter national affairs will not settle it. The problem is there and bids fair to stick until just one thing is done-the placing of restrictions upon Japanese immigration and Japanese occupation of land and Japanese commercial developments." The "Blade" continues: It is a matter of great importance that the friendly relations with Japan shall not be strained to the breaking point. But it is far more important that the Pacific coast of America shall remain a country in which a white man can make a living, can be on terms of intimacy with his neighbors, and can maintain the standards of living and morality which he thinks proper. So that if Japan's dignity is going to be injured, and if she must find some other land on which to quarter her surplus population, she might as well suffer these hurts and inconveniences now as upon some other day. . It is time for the whole Nation to decide, exclaims the Detroit "Journal" (Rep.) and the other pro-California papers. "whether the interests of Japanese capital, or the wording of a carelessly drawn treaty, are more important than the interests of the Caucasian race on this continent." This newspaper continues in an anti-Japanese strain. In contrast to such anti-Japanese comments are to be found such editorial expressions of appreciation of the Japanese people as the following from the Sioux Falls (S. Dak.) Press," which, however, recognizes the right of California to first consideration : The Japanese, a sensitive people, resent any discrimination against them. They believe, since they joined in with the Western nations by the adoption in 1889 of a constitution, that they are entitled to some consideration. Their victory over plodding China, the old China, in the war of 1894-95 gave them a world prestige, and when, ten years later, they triumphed over Russia the Japanese won a position abreast of the most modern of nations. They feel that they should be entitled to make their way in any part of the world they choose to live in. Most interesting of all comment is that of the California press. For instance, the Sacramento "Bee" (Prog.) declares, as do many California papers: " As a matter of fact, the alien land bills before the Legislature have no more application to the citizens of Japan than to those of any other nation. They conflict with no Japanese treaty right or obligation, and would not have the effect of denying to Japanese any right or privilege which Americans have in Japan" On the other hand, not all California papers are anti-Japanese. The San Francisco" Evening Post" (Ind.) says: "California has worried along without these laws for fifty years, and no great injury has resulted." The San The San Francisco Argonaut (Ind.) points out the futility of the alien land law, which it says is not needed in any case, as there is no general movement of Japanese to acquire land in America. To show how easily such laws are evaded, it points to the failure of the Mexican prohibition of the foreign ownership of land within ten miles of the international boundary. The "Argonaut" reasons as follows: In cases of this kind there is always the easy plan of having some dummy carry the title; and there are forty other devices entirely within the law which come to the same thing. . . . Some years ago our neighboring State of Oregon had a law prohibiting aliens from owning lands, with the effect that formal title in all instances of alien ownership was held by an attorney or some other person especially chosen under an easy arrangement of guarantees. It matters little whether the law be passed or rejected, since in any event whoever wants to acquire our lands and has the money to pay for them is not likely to be estopped. At the same time it would in Japan be regarded as a gratuitous affrontfutile, to be sure, but none the less an exhibition of an inhospitable spirit. there is a law that denies the Japanese the privilege to own or lease and occupy houses. manufactories, warehouses, and shops, or 'to lease land for residential and commercial purposes,' it is unconstitutional." As South Carolina was the first State to secede from the Union, this Nationalistic view expressed by the Columbia "State (Dem.) is noteworthy : A State that is denied by the Federal Constitution the right to make war, and that has not the power to defend itself from conquest and subjugation if attacked, is assuming the right to enact legislation insulting to foreign countries and against the policy and protest of the United States Government and that might eventuate in war. And when the Governor and Legislature of California claim the right to enact such legislation on the ground that California is a Sovereign State, the absence of frankness and logic is startling, because, did they not rely upon the power of the United States to defend their State from any reprisal their course might incite, such action would not be considered for a moment. No State has the right, and no State should have the power, to assume an attitude toward another country that interferes with the foreign policy of the United States Government, or that could involve the United States in war. Six years ago," says the Hon. Charles J. Bonaparte, writing to the Baltimore "Evening Sun" (Ind. Dem.), "when the San Francisco School Board attempted to exclude Japanese children from those public schools attended by white children, the writer, then Attorney-General, instituted appropriate legal The Los Angeles Times" (Ind. Rep.) proceedings to protect the former in their extends its greetings to "the amazing State Legislature at Sacramento," and begs its members to adjourn and go home at once without "involving the Nation in a war with Japan and making California an object of derision from Bangor to New Orleans. . . Unhappily there is no power anywhere," says this newspaper, " to prorogue the Legislature, and all the Times' can do is to give utterance to the appeal of all good citizens of whatever politics Adjourn, gentlemen, if you have any regard for the welfare of the State."" President Wilson's message to "the people and legislative authorities of California" is, declares the New York Sun" (Ind.), in no sense an interference with their prerogative to make laws governing the owning and leasing of land by aliens; it is an appeal, such as may properly be made by the President at this time, not to involve the United States Government in an unnecessary and dangerous controversy about the privileges accorded to the Japanese in the treaty of 1911. "Wherever It rights under the treaty then in force. became unnecessary to prosecute these suits to final decree, for some of the leading city and State officials, having come to the National Capital at the invitation of President Roosevelt, were led by the representations there made to them to advise the modification of the School Board's orders in such manner as to remove the cause of offense." Mr. Bonaparte adds: This precedent may or may not commend itself to President Wilson; we are entitled to ask that he attain satisfactory results by whatever methods he may deem the most appropriate; but, however this may be, it would be a source of profound regret to those anxious to see our relations what these should be with the great young island Empire, now become our Western neighbor, and it might be a cause of grave danger to our country' peace and prosperity if such questions were held of negligible moment or determined by considerations of temporary partisan advantage or by quibbles as to States' rights. To thus deal with them would be, in every sense of the term, playing with fire. F A REVIEW OF THE FACTS OR the people of India "How to control famine" is not an academic question, any more than "How to control floods" is an academic question to the citizens of stricken Dayton. In its issue of January 11 The Outlook published an article. on "India's Chronic Famine," written by Basanta Koomar Roy, extension lecturer of the University of Wisconsin. He spoke, of course, for himself and not for The Outlook. The article was published as an interesting contribution to the discussion of a question of very vital importance and as a representative protest from a member of that nation most intimately concerned in the solution of this difficult problem. THE CHARGES AGAINST ENGLAND Briefly summarized, Professor Roy's argument was as follows: From the eleventh century to the nineteenth century England, Scotland, and Wales had one hundred and seven famines. During the nineteenth century there were only two scarcities of food. From the eleventh century to the beginning of English rule, in 1745, India had but eighteen famines. During the latter half of the eighteenth century India had seven famines. During the nineteenth century there were thirty-one famines, that destroyed over thirty-two million lives. This terrible death-list was not caused by overpopulation, Professor Roy says, because India, as a whole, ranks but ninth in density of population per square mile. It was not caused by an excessive birth-rate, for here India ranks but tenth. It was not caused by failure of rainfall, because India has the heaviest rainfall in the world. Famine, believes Professor Roy, "is a gift of the British to India. . . ." "The trouble," he says, "is that water is no longer stored as the Hindus used to store it, because . . . the British Government in India pays more attention to strategic railways and the efficiency of the army . . . than to irrigation. . . ." Famine exists because "Indian farmers are rack-rented and the last penny is squeezed out of them, even in a fat year." An "impoverishing land tax is a principal item of India's revenue. The British Government must have this revenue to keep up her expensive system of government in the poorest country in the world. . . .” Finally, India is drained of food by exportation to England. "India, even in the worst famine years, has exported grain to a value of over sixty million dollars." "It is an irony of ironies that people should starve in India while there is plenty in the land. . . . The people of India are realizing the hopeless economic derangement of their life which expresses itself in ghastly mortality from famine, plague, and malaria, and, as they are bound to elevate the economic status of their country, they are demanding more political power. . . At any cost, chronic but avoidable' famines of India must be stopped." HAVE INDIAN FAMINES INCREASED? To these sweeping charges made by Professor Roy have come in several replies. Readers question both his conclusions and the data upon which these conclusions are based. Mr. Walter Phelps Hall, writing from New York, makes a convincing attack upon Professor Roy's description of conditions in India and upon the historical comparison which he draws between England and India. "To some extent," he says, "Professor Roy's contentions are founded on insufficient data and to some extent illogically deduced from such facts as are given. "As a matter of fact, as Mr. Morison assures us in his Economic Transition in India,'' there is not a tittle of evidence' to support the assertion that famines are more frequent under the British régime. From the earliest recorded history of India to the present, we may trace a constant and repeated tale of drought, famine, and disaster. "It is quite possible that a greater number of famines are recorded in Great Britain before the eighteenth century than in India. Almost inevitably must this be so, inasmuch as the history of India, in complete contradistinction to that of England, can never be known save in its broadest outlines. But to infer on that account that Great Britain has suffered six times as severely as India is a reductio ad absurdum. On the other hand, it is logical to assume that famines have been more prevalent in India than in England, since facilities for the transportation of grain in the former country were of the poorest, but, in the latter, provided to no inconsiderable extent by the sea. "Let us," continues Mr. Hall, "analyze, however, Mr. Roy's statistics. His exact words are: "In the first quarter of the nineteenth century there were five famines with 1,000,000 deaths; in the second quarter, 500,000 deaths; in the third quarter, six famines with 5,000,000 deaths; and in the last quarter, eighteen famines with 26,000,000 deaths. "What justification is there for this estimate? An immediate glance at the second quarter shows that Mr. Roy has for that period neglected to give any number of famines. Mr. Digby, however, from whom his information is obtained, says that there were two-less than one-half the number for the preceding quarter, and deaths also less by. half. Here at the start is a curious admission from one who would saddle upon the British Government the responsibility of Indian famines. Throughout the nineteenth century the sphere of British influence was constantly growing, yet he who would attack that influence as the main cause of famine is forced to concede, by his own figures, that famines lessened during the very period in which that influence increased. "But it must be conceded that our knowledge of famine conditions throughout the first half of the nineteenth century is largely guesswork. There was then no census, no bureau of vital statistics, no famine commission, indeed no direct assumption of governmental responsibility by Great Britain until after 1857. Famines undoubtedly there were, but no scientific data exist to determine their number and intensity." ANALYZING THE FIGURES "Turn now," continues Mr. Hall, “to Mr. Roy's figures for the last quarter of the century. Eighteen famines he ascribes to this period; the total number of deaths therefrom, twenty-six million. Of the eighteen, Prosperous British India,' the source of Mr. Roy's information, mentions only two that were widespread, and these were far from covering all India. The other famines, so called, were more truly local scarcities, bringing inevitably in their train. distress and want. Whenever a crop failure is noted in India, it is termed in customary parlance a famine, improperly so from our connotation of the word. Famine, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is an extreme and general scarcity of food.' In this literal sense, owing to the wisely directed activity of the British Government, which shall be dis cussed later, famines have all but disappeared from the Indian peninsula. But, to be more specific, take four of Mr. Roy's eighteen famines, as described by the authority on which he relies : "1886-7. Central Provinces. Earthworks prepared, but late autumn rains secured the ripening of the winter crops. 1890: Kumaon and Garwhal. Comparatively small help required. 1891-2. Bombay Deccan. Only slight relief granted. 1891-2. Ajumere-Merwara. Relief work of various kinds and help to weavers granted. "Here are four cases out of the eighteen where it is evident that only local scarcity existed, and if we include two others, one in Bengal and one in the Northwest Provinces, we have two famines where, according to the writer's own statement, there were no deaths; thereby proving that either they were not famines or that an efficient Government prevented all loss of life. "So much for the famines; now for the mortality of twenty-six millions. This estimate is derived in large measure, self-confessedly, from what the increase in population would have been had earlier census ratios been maintained. The fact that other causes than famine could have influenced this growth does not seem to have dawned upon the author of Prosperous British India.' Famine has not been noticeable of late in Great Britain or France, yet in both countries the rate of increase is lower. Furthermore, in India the taking of the census in earlier decades was very incomplete, and as the census became more and more thorough, huge increases took place apparently in population, but in reality in the enumeration of people hitherto uncounted. That process has stopped now, and the last census consequently did not maintain the usual ratio. But the author was blind to this fact, and whenever the official statistics of death were not sufficiently high for his purpose, they were jacked up offhand. Suppose, however, that we take these figures at their face value. Twenty-six million deaths resulting from famine in the last quarter of the century means for India less than onehalf of one per cent a year-a large death rate, be it granted; but, in view of the horrible diseases and suffering which any diminishing of the standard of living in a poverty-stricken country entails, hardly as frightful as the figures would seem to imply." Furthermore, it may be somewhat paradoxically stated that England is responsible |