tion organization in Wisconsin, carried on by private enterprise but supervised and indorsed by the State, "throughout a fifty-thousand-acre tract of former timber land roads have been made, schoolhouses and community halls erected, rural telephone lines put up, rural routes established, several hundred farm homes have been constructed, thousands of acres of land have been put under cultivation, hundreds of dairy cows and other live stock have been brought in, and pure seed introduced." The same sort of farm development has been successfully undertaken in North Carolina.

The Commission does not believe that the other interests of the State should be taxed to give the farmer anything, but that the credit of the State should be employed for the establishment of self

I

supporting colonies which shall in due time pay back the loans with interest. This method has been adopted successfully in various European countries. Denmark, for example, one of the most prosperous agricultural countries in Europe, where the co-operative method of marketing farm produce has been highly developed, loans money to farm colonists at three to four per cent interest and gives the borrower sixty-five years to repay the loans in partial payments.

Finally, the Commission outlines a plan of legislation by which the State plan of legislation by which the State. may enter upon the work of land settlement and colonization. Since I am a taxpayer, one feature of the plan caught my eye instantly. It is proposed that the work of State colonization shall be administered by a board of five directors,

"whose term of office shall range from two to ten years from the date of appointment by the Governor, and who shall not receive salary or compensation of any kind other than actual traveling expenses when attending a meeting of the directors."

In the great public school system of our country we have boards of trustees who serve for the public good without pay. Is it, therefore, visionary to hope that the time may come when able men and women will take hold of the work of farm settlement and colonization in the same civic spirit which has built up our public schools? The report of the South Carolina Commission points out the way in which this work may be done, not as a philanthropy, but as a business basic to our National life.

T is easy to say what other people should do. We Americans, however, are sufficiently detached really to understand some European errors- -it is true, for instance, that:

(a) Governments must raise by taxes the money needed for running expenses. If they do not, they menace the peace and order of the world, and if they are called democracies they had better be called something else.

(b) Germany must abandon her intrigue and pay a fair price. Least touched by war, she has been least taxed in peace. The fires of hate which she keeps burning are signals of warning to those she has wronged. If Germany did not exist, there would be no world problem. Justice alone will quiet Europe. There has been no such opportunity for justice in the history of man, for there is no nation, at present, strong enough to resist it.

(c) Britain must play the European diplomatic game, not in her old jealous, trouble-making, war-making way, but as she plays golf and tennis-cleanly. Internationally she plays cards as a professional, and we know what that means.

(d) Europe should stop charging New York with depressing its exchange. The ignorant are led to believe it, but the intelligent classes know that the printingpress is the criminal. They should stop printing ciphers on their paper money.

They should also stop saying, "Amer

Special Correspondence

By WILLIAM C. GREGG

MR. GREGG'S correspon

dence has frequently appeared in The Outlook. It always arrests attention by its terse forcefulness. It preser's pictures of conditions in broad outlines. In sending this correspondence to us Mr. Gregg writes: "I think all my statements are arguable. At least it isthe best I can do after two and a half months' observation." THE EDITORS.

ica has all the gold of the world." This is not true by more than half, and would be still less true were they to quit sending their gold to us for safe-keeping.

(e) Human beings everywhere would do well to modify their selfishness. All are striving for more at the expense of are striving for more at the expense of others. There is not a class, not a nation, which would be content with prewar conditions if they were restored. They magnify the advantages of others and their own troubles. As a matter of fact, they are all quite well clothed, fed, and housed. The seeming exceptions do not bear impartial investigation. When you come to think about it, why is there such a European "housing problem"? It is not because of the increase of popula

tion since 1914, but because of increased demand. People are not content to live as they did before the war.

(f) General Smuts and Lloyd George continually harp on "American participation in world affairs." How tiresome! We have loaned billions since the war, and will continue to loan, no doubt; but the more they talk, the less valuable the security seems, and certainly the less appealing is the charity, for they couple a plea for Europe with a kick at Francean urge for stability with a bouquet to those who are the apostles of chaos.

(g) If I may say in an academic way that which our State Department might otherwise disapprove, I do not think the United States should press the collection of our war debts.

There is much individual wealth and personal extravagance in the debtor countries, but if these governments don't or can't reach them with their taxes it will be impossible for us to do so. I suggest that the increased taxation of the present profiteers is Europe's way out of her debauch of paper inflation and her way to balance her budgets. I do not propose the canceling of their war debts to us. They cannot, however, pay now or in the next decade without our loaning the money back again to them. It would be better for us not to collect than, having collected, both to spend it at home on bonuses and such, and, under the clamor of Americans for "world mar

kets," to lend it again to Europe. Our finances are not beyond the reach of well-meaning maniacs.

These debtor countries should sell us their West India islands and some of their art treasures.

Both England and France have islands which are not income-producers to them, and probably would not be to us. But their transfer to us would be substantial considerations, which should not cause loss of pride any more than our purchase of Alaska from Russia or the Virgin Islands from Denmark. But if, per

W

chance, pride is involved, there will be a loss of that, anyway, or of something worse, before those billions of principal and billions of interest are paid.

Belgium and Italy could spare us ten per cent of their art treasures-nay, five per cent would probably satisfy us. The city of Munich (Germany) alone has as many art treasures as are to be found in all the public galleries of the United States together. Germany and Austria have accepted our charity, but, as far as I know, no old masters or historic tapestries have been taken from their crowded

galleries and sent to us with their compliments.

The collection of these debts insures our interest in Europe for many years to come. Lloyd George and General Smuts should not worry. But the collection is fraught with perils to Europe and perils to us. It is a subject that must have broader and wiser consideration than it has yet had. We cannot collect, and we cannot forgive. It therefore becomes the world's greatest economic problem, transcending the question of how much Germany shall pay and when.

HIS letter has been criticised by

TH

some who think it narrow and restrictive; but does not this criticism arise from the failure to appreciate the actual position? The Church of which these bishops are officers has a Creed which is taught to all its children and in which, before confirmation, they declare their belief. All the ministers of this Church in like manner at their ordination declare a like belief.

As Bishop Manning well said in his sermon at the ordination of Bishop Freeman, we do not teach a dogma, but a life. It is because this Creed embodies the story of the life of Christ as we perceive it that we thus declare our belief.

The first and fundamental principle in this life is the declaration, "I believe in God the Father Almighty." Do we really believe in him, that he is the Father and that he is almighty? There are those whose conception of God is of a great power and, it may be, of an unchangeable law. But the Christian idea of God as it is taught in the New Testament and as we conceive and apprehend

it is of a personal Father with whom the human being can have a relation like that which a human child holds to his father, a relation of love and confidence and devotion. But we also believe that this Father is almighty. If he is a person and if he is almighty, why should we have any difficulty in believing any of the wonderful things which we are taught in the New Testament he did? Why should it be hard for us to believe that in the divine person of his Son he became incarnate in human form? Why should we find it hard to believe that this incarnation took place directly by the will of the Almighty Father? The beginning of all human life is wonderful and divine; but why should it be difficult to believe that in this particular case, this unique incarnation, there should have been a special creation by the Almighty Father? The same reasoning applies to the actual fact of the Resurrection. Of this no doubt there is much more testimony and far more extended preaching. In the days of St. Paul, as in our time, there were those who found it hard to believe that Christ

had actually risen from the dead, but that did not stop St. Paul from preaching this great truth. The power of that truth and of the eternal life which it expressed brought in those days and has continually brought from age to age many souls to have this faith in Christ and the power of his resurrection, which St. John tells us is "the victory that overcometh the world." It does enable man, who himself is naturally subject to the current way in which people act and think in this world, to lead a higher and spiritual life. In this case, as in the other, why should we doubt the fact? And if we do not doubt it, why is it not the duty of the bishops and teachers of the Church to express their faith distinctly and do their utmost to make known to men that they believe firmly in these spiritual realities which men are tempted to doubt?

But there is another point in this Creed which the bishops expressed in their letter and which is often overlooked. We believe in "the holy Catholic Church." We believe that there is a

"blessed company of all faithful people," as it is called in the Episcopal Communion service, which is from age to age enlightened by the Holy Spirit. No No doubt this Church is not, and has not been, united as it should be, but that is because it is human. Still, we do believe that there is such a Church, that it is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and that its teaching, therefore, is entitled to respect and consideration. Now, we know historically that for many centuries this Church has taught with practical unanimity the two great facts of the Virgin Birth-that is to say, the incarnation of the divine in human form-and the actual Resurrection. Not only have these truths been taught, but they have been commemorated by anniversary celebrations from year to year. The continuance of such anniversary celebrations for centuries by the whole Church is the strongest possible evidence, after the lapse of centuries, of the actual fact. Take, for example, two of the great events in American history, the birth of Washington and the Declaration of Independence. No person is now living who was present on either occasion or ever saw any one who was present. It is true that there are books which record these events, but these books are not as widely read or as well known as the Gospels which record the birth and resurrection

I

of Jesus Christ. The fact that we do commemorate from year to year by National celebrations these events is convincing to us of their truth. But that celebration is less general than the celebration by the Christian Church throughout the world of the festivals of the Annunciation and of Easter. We have pictures in poetry and in art of the appearance of the Angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary and of the appearance of Christ after his resurrection to the Marys who came to the tomb. To.many spiritual souls these pictures are realities. There is such a thing as spiritual perception: it is a great reality. Spiritual perception is as real and reliable as the perception of the senses-in fact, being on a higher plane, it is really more reliable.

So, then, we may see, not only by record of books, but by the continued observance of the Church through the ages and by the spiritual perception of the believer, how these great facts declared in the Creed are made manifest. They are a great source of comfort and strength to believing souls. All this being true, why is it not the duty of the bishops to declare their conviction of the truth? They make no anathema against those to whom it has not yet been given to perceive these truths. The whole temper of their pastoral letter is really that of the Apostle: "If in anything ye be other

Two Germanys

wise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you."

The test of the whole is really this. A Yale professor has recently said: "Every religion is a product of human evolution and has been conditioned by social environment," and again he speaks of "this shell of religion." The Christian idea, so far as Christianity is concerned, is exactly the reverse. According to the Christian Scriptures and the uniform teaching of the Christian Church, Christianity is not a product of human evolution; it is a divine revelation. It is not a mere shell that envelops the human being; it is life. That is what Christ said. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." He spoke of himself as "the way, the truth, and the life." Believing this, it is the duty of Christians gladly to receive this divine revelation and to make it an essential part of their lives. If we do this, we shall find the truth of the promise: "If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine." It is not the willing of the human will, it is not human evolution; and so we come back again to the words of Christ, which are just as much foolishness to the mere intellect as they were to the Greeks, which are nevertheless eternally true: "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein."

HAVE been in two Germanysalong the Ruhr and along the Saar (or, as it is called in French, Sarre). In the district to the north, as in this to the south, I have been struck by compactness-the closeness with which mines, factories, dwellings, schools, churches, town halls, crowd upon one another. Each district's whole existence depends on one industry-coal.

Yet there are differences. While busy, smoky Essen and busy, smoky Saarbrücken (Sarrebruck), the chief towns of the respective territories, seem both only smaller Pittsburghs, the Saarbrücken people show more snap, more touch-andgo, than do those of the towns along the Ruhr, or even those of the cities along the Rhine. Here you see no dawdlers or loafers, no men out of work, no apprehensive folk standing about in gloomy groups waiting for something to turn up. In all the shops there are plenty of customers, buying.

Along the Ruhr and the Rhine there are popular discontent and frequent explosion of party feeling. On the contrary, here in Saarbrücken, the German police seem to have the municipal situation well in hand. I see no street rows or fighting or pillaging.

All this, however, does not prevent the Saar workmen from grumbling that his wages have not increased with the cost of living. Here, as everywhere, the cost of living has advanced, but not nearly as alarmingly as along the Ruhr and the Rhine. Yet the Saar district cannot feed itself. It has food enough for only forty days. It must import from its neighbors. Germany can no longer lend it anything. So it now relies on France and the Low Countries.

The Saar workman is far better off than he would be if he were in Germany. He would not gain much in proportion by exchanging his wages and expenses for even those in our own land. Not only is

his cost of living far less than in Germany, he gets paid in francs, not marks; that is, in a coin not forever melting away and getting completely lost in the quicksands.

Moreover, he benefits governmentally by the fact that the French mine operators in the Saar actually pay taxes. The German mine operators in the Ruhr have avoided paying any taxes at all. This is one of their ways to force the Berlin Government into a bogus bankruptcy.

Yet the Saar workman can be a striker

if necessary. A recent strike lasted just one hundred days and cost about a billion francs. In glaring contrast with similar events in the Ruhr, the authorities here controlled the situation without the troops ever coming into direct contact with the population in general. The strike actually ran its course without bloodshed or imprisonment or judicial proceedings. Such a condition speaks volumes for a supposedly "enslaved peo

ple," as the Germans would have us believe.

Why "enslaved"? The framers of the Versailles Treaty wanted to make good the loss of the coal mines in the north of France, destroyed by the Germans, by giving to France the ownership of the Saar mines, and, at the end of a fifteenyear period, the advantage of a popular vote-a plebiscite-to determine under what sovereignty the Sarrois would choose to live. If the plebiscite were to go in favor of Germany, she would then have the right to buy back the mines. According to the Treaty, therefore, a new Government for the Saar, under the League of Nations, must needs be set up, Germany renouncing her rights in favor of the League, as trustee for the new Government. The Treaty provided that this Government should be administered by a Commission, representing the League Council and responsible only to it; further, that this Commission should consist of five members, chosen by the Council-a representative from the Saar, one from France, and three from countries other than France or Germany. Representatives from Canada, Belgium, and Denmark were chosen. The Commission members in no way represent their respective Governments and are responsible to the Council only as individuals. Any differences among the five have been adjusted by their majority vote. Finally, it was provided that this Governing Commission-in other words, the Government-should have all the preceding German Government's powers; that in introducing modifications (the imposition of taxes, for example) the Commission should decide after consulting the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the region; and, in especial, in fixing labor conditions the Commission must consider the wishes of the local labor organizations. Though the Government may not possibly be sufficiently democratic, the whole system of German administration of civil and criminal law is maintained. The inhabitants retain their local assemblies and their educational and religious liberties. All this is the "enslavement" imposed. For the first time, indeed, since the annexation of the Saar Basin to Prussia and to the Bavarian Pfalz, these people are now living under a Government resident on

Parliament's Barbaric Pomp

"We'll make an end of this expensive nonsense,' a labor leader shouted as he watched the ceremonies opening the session in 1922.” But the Parliamentary ritual has six centuries of tradition behind it. It is significant of the drama of English history. That is what

Mr. Lindsay Rogers

makes you feel in his article on the opening of Parliament in next week's issue of The Outlook.

officials show an overwhelming majority of Germans, the fact that the Commissioners are four to one non-Sarrois results in a lack of popular, racial sympathy.

Second, the Government is established for a limited time-fifteen years.

Third, the Government not only governs the Saar district, but includes the rights therein of a foreign Power, France.

Fourth, order could not be entirely maintained by a local gendarmerie because the higher industrial wages naturally attract the men; in addition, they have not the requisite impartiality. Of course the Government does not expect to maintain a foreign garrison as a permanent feature of its organization. As a plebiscite area, the Saar must have administrative independence. This independence is incompatible with the maintenance of order by the troops of one of the Powers concerned with the territory's final possession. The French garrison, therefore, has been reduced as much as possible, namely, to one-fifth of its original force of ten thousand men. Even so, and with the increase of the gendarmerie, foreign troops still form the chief means of maintaining order, and so valuable are the mines to France that her Government gladly pays for the troops' support, placing them freely at the governing Commission's disposal.

The Commission has been not only upright, uncorrupted, and the guardian of order. On the financial side its record has been still more notable. Unlike nearly every other European Government, it has actually been able to balance its budgets. Nor is this all. Incredible as it may seem, it has been able to save enough, in addition, to pay for what the strike cost it. In these days, when so

much underpinning seems dropping out of some German states, it is a satisfaction to see that this region is steady, selfrespecting, thrifty, successful.

This has been chiefly due to businesslike, economic, American pressure from the two successive Ministers of Finance on the Commission, Canadians both, Mr. R. D. Waugh and Mr. G. W. Stephens. During Mr. Waugh's three and a half years of office the pioneering work of developing the Saar Basin into a financial efficiency devolved upon him. His success in making ends meet was both monumental and phenomenal.

Another thing. When I was last here, early in 1923, hotel bills, cab fares, everything was reckoned in marks. Now everything is reckoned in francs. Up to this year the Government's budgets were made out in marks and also in francs; this year they are made out in francs only. A steady standard of value had proved beyond a peradventure that the industrial concerns which had already replaced the mark by the franc were in far better condition than were the others. Why, then, urged the French, not make the custom universal in the district? They carried the day.

Since the signing of the Versailles Treaty steady influences from both Berlin and Paris have been converging here, pulling of course in opposite directions. An instance of a strong influence from Berlin was the help of subsidies in making the recent strike a sympathetic movement to that in the Ruhr. An instance of a subtler force on the French side is found in the excellence of the French schools in this district. In them there is not the least open propaganda, but a quiet force persists. The Germans are deservedly proud of their own schools, and yet when, four years ago, the French opened theirs, ostensibly for the children of their officers, no less than twelve thousand pupils applied for admission, the very large majority of course being Germans. This meant a loss to the German schools, but a practical gain to some Sarrois. They perceived in a fifteen-year occupation of their territory the increasing use of the French language, and proposed to have their children at least proportionately equipped.

Paris may be winning over Berlin. But the increased prestige will, I fancy, be hardly great enough to induce the Sarrois in 1934 to elect to pass under permanent French sovereignty. On the other hand, they will not be so likely, as seemed probable four years ago, to choose to return to Germany. They may be quite willing to continue present prosperity under present rule.

Saarbrücken.

Keystone

I

T is only a few years since George Bellows, Henri, Luks, Glackens, Sloan, and a few others were the young Progressives of American art. Now they are almost Pilgrim Fathers or Elder Statesmen, or something of the sort.

To identify this painter too closely with a group, however, would be a mistake. He stands by himself, and his work needs no signature. For there is marked individuality in both color and design. If he has a kinship, it may be with such an earlier artist as Winslow Homer.

Like Homer, Bellows is emphatic, masculine. And he finds congenial themes at sea, not so much because it is the sea as because of the chance for color contrast and for bold design. Whatever he is painting, he loves to set a strong blue or purple where it will shout. He seeks opposition of hues as diligently as some painters pursue the blending tones. But he usually carries it off without disaster.

In an earlier period not a few American artists, like Abbey and Pyle, were known first as draughtsmen,

magazine and book illustrators, making a place for themselves later as mural or portrait painters. Bellows is reversing the process. He made his early entrance with peremptory canvases that found ready appreciation. Of late years he has gone in for lithographs and drawings, including some notable magazine illustration. But in all of his work he keeps the character of painter.

This is evident in his studies of prize-fights, for example, or in the use of the war episode-Edith Cavell. The composition is treated decoratively, and its passing news interest does not disturb its balance as a work of art.

It would be hard to say whether this active and exploring talent finds a better field in portraiture or in composition of other sorts. One of his finest works is the "College Campus," a scene which could be found only in America and a canvas which seems to convey a direct feeling of our soil and of our social fabric. In such pieces as that, in "After the Rain" or "The Bowery After Dark," there is no forcing of the effect, no false dependence upon a formula of technique.

ROBERT J. COLE.