I

N comparing the liquor situation of America and England we must remember that in the United States the liquor institution was never considered as very reputable, while in England it is one of the most respectable trades of the country.

In England the most popular drink is beer. It has held its place in Great Britain since its introduction by the Roman conquerors. Many English people quite generally and honestly believe that the British Empire has been brought up on beef and beer.

For so many centuries alcoholic drinking has been bound up with the social habits of the people that it now seems to have assumed a hopeless inveteracy.

The names of some of the pubs and old inns reflect the close connection of the liquor traffic with the civic and religious history of England. There are "The Lamb and Flag," an allusion to the symbolic Agnus Dei; "Peter's Finger," which pictures the Papal hand raised in blessing; "The Cross Keys," emblems of the power of the keys. Also "The Baptist's Head," "The Three Nuns," "The Flaming Sword" (with which St. Michael defended the gate of paradise), "Noah's Ark," and "The Bleeding Heart." The emblems of St. George, St. Crispin, St. Hugh, and St. Blaise adorn many a bar.

In some cases the village pubs have grown out of the local churches. In the

Middle Ages ale was dispensed in the church house, a building adjoining the church. Gradually these church houses were leased out to innkeeper tenants, and then, in some cases, came the metamorphosis-church house to ale-house. And again, several of the pubs of to-day were founded by the monks of the Middle Ages, in order to provide entertainment and hospitality in their monasteries.

At the present time the brewery companies own ninety per cent of the publichouses, and the nobility, clergy, and church and school endowments own the majority of shares in the brewery companies.

Viscountess Astor recently referred to the phrase "drunk as a lord," saying that it is now out of date. "You can't say that any longer," she said, "because lords don't get drunk; but a great many men become lords because they sell drink."

An examination of the personnel of

the brewing companies revealed to me among the directors and trustees for debenture holders the names of 31 peers, 19 sons of peers, 66 baronets or knights, 102 justices of the peace, and 28 members of Parliament. You can readily see that the social influence of the liquor trade is considerable.

Spiritual peers, as well as temporal peers, are financially interested in the distilling and brewery businesses.

The most recent Brewer's Almanac that I could find in the public library gave its opening pages to the Church of England Calendar, with memorandum space provided after each saint's and feast day.

The great endowment funds of colleges and church parishes as well as the private funds of many schoolmasters and clergy are invested in the shares of the great liquor firms.

Temperance speakers at Hyde Park meet the continual effective thrust of the hecklers, "If drink is the cause of all the misery you say it is, why do so many church people and clergymen invest their money in breweries?" The reason, I suppose, is that these shares pay from ten to twenty per cent income annually and are free from tax. But for the monetary gain they are sacrificing all hope of any effective propaganda against the drink evil.

However, it is only fair to say that many ministers and bishops of the va

rious English churches are sincerely opposed to prohibition such as was enacted in the United States, on the ground that it interferes with personal liberty and does not effectively bring about temperance. These clergymen see no wrong in the moderate drinking of liquor, and usually partake themselves at their dinner, whether private or public. Several prominent ecclesiastics take leading parts in anti-prohibition demonstration meetings.

I was told of one parson who attended a dinner of his local liquor trade society and in his speech declared that he was to be found every week night taking his ease in the village pub. A newspaper reporter followed up this tip and wrote of the habits and character of the man. "He stood at the bar," wrote the reporter, "with the elbow of an habitué on the counter," and, going there "out of simple fellowship, to talk, to have a drink, to join in any fun that may be going," he says to his companion, "Drink up, and we'll have another one in the other bar."

The liquor business is popularly known as "the Trade." The use of the definite article is significant. It is as if it tops all other trades-and it does.

"The Trade" is the most powerful thing in the country. It is now SO deeply intrenched, so skillfully organized, that the common belief is that there is no defeating it. Most people feel that it could smash any Government party or church that dared to stand up against it. The secret of its strength is mainly in the fact that the British are a drink-loving people.

"The Trade" dominates politics because, as Lord Astor says, "it has entangled in its success the financial wellbeing of Church and nobility."

An interesting commentary on the strength of "the Trade" is found in the story of the recent W. C. T. U. Convention in Edinburgh. The only two auditoriums available for their meetings were Usher Hall and McEwan Hall, which were the gifts of the wholesale liquor dealers whose names they bear.

The Fight Against "the Trade" W1 are the prohibitionists of

HAT

Great Britain doing to combat the liquor trade?

In considering this question, let us look back for a bit upon the history of the British dry movement. Temperance societies in England are nearly a century old. In the eighteen thirties the British and Foreign Temperance Societies started their drive for total abstinence from all spirits (wines and beer excepted). In 1853 the United Kingdom

Alliance one of the foremost organizations of the present day-was founded to secure the "total and immediate suppression of the liquor traffic." A central office is now maintained in London and office is now maintained in London and paid agents are distributed all over England. This society advocates local option that is to say, the right of every city or community to vote itself dry if it so wishes. Its methods are very much the same as our Anti-Saloon League. In 1916 this organization campaigned for a war-time prohibition, and obtained over two million signatures of people favoring that measure.

tains a group of social reformers who are agitating for local option. However, in the main this party is too closely tied up with the interests of the breweries and publicans to make prohibition a party measure. Leaders of the Labor Party expressed the opinion that the majority of their members would stand for public ownership of the liquor business. The Liberal Party has declared itself to be hostile to the brewing interests, and it is considering inserting a temperance plank in its platform. This party is very weak at the present time, but hopes to reap the reward of taking the lead in an attempt to get rid of the nation's terrific drink bill.

Another prohibition society is the Strength of Britain Movement, which was organized to bring about war-time When the Bishop of Oxford introprohibition and which has continued its duced in the House of Lords last year a existence and now advocatesbill providing for local option, it was sup(1) The immediate prohibition of ported by groups from all three parties.

spirits.

(2) The immediate limitation of brewing to one-half of the pre-war barrelage, followed by a progressive restriction on the output of both beer and wine until it entirely ceases.

The Temperance Council of the Christian Churches started in 1915 and is made up of temperance bodies from all the churches-Nonconformist, Church of England, and Roman Catholic though some of the representation is very weak. Its program aims to restrict the hours of liquor sale and to give each locality the right to vote on the three options: (1) No change, (2) reduction, options: (1) No change, (2) reduction, or (3) no license. It also purposes to provide as an alternative to the liquor tavern a place for non-alcoholic refreshment, recreation, and social intercourse.

I shall not enumerate the many denominational temperance organizations, but the list cannot be closed without a mention of the World League Against Alcoholism, founded in America, and which has for its purpose (as its name implies) world-wide prohibition. It maintains an active London office.

One very regrettable condition of affairs in the British dry movement is the great jealousy which exists between the various temperance societies. I noticed this in my study of the situation, and my observation was confirmed by Viscount Astor, himself an ardent prohibitionist, who said, "They are all fighting a common evil, and yet they can't refrain from fighting each other."

London's Daily Prohibition

IN the last ten years the hours for sale

of drink have been cut down by onehalf. Before the war liquor could be sold for nineteen and one-half hours out of the twenty-four-a period far exceeding the hours of sale of other retail trades.

At the present time the City of London has prohibition for fifteen hours each day, but there it is called "shorter hours." The hours that the publichouses are allowed to sell liquor vary. Some are open until ten in the evening and some until eleven, but they all must close at stated hours during the day.

There is, however, a flaw in this system of closing hours. As a "Central News" reporter pointed out to me, "When the pubs in London close in one borough at ten, one simply goes to another borough (which may be just across the street), and there he can booze for another hour."

Public-houses are under other rules and regulations. It is an offense to sell spirits to any one apparently under sixteen, or to any one under fourteen in corked and sealed vessels. Liquor must be paid for at the time of purchase or the publican is liable for a Government fine. No liquor can, by law, be sold to a drunken person, nor is drunkenness or riotous conduct to be allowed on the premises. Constables are not allowed to remain within the pubs unless on duty. No games (except dominoes) or betting are allowed. The custom of paying workmen's salaries within the publichouses has now been forbidden. DrunkTemperance teaching is now quite ards are to be arrested only when incommon in the schools.

But, with all the division of forces, much has been accomplished toward temperance in England.

All of the political parties are beginning to take an interest in the liquor problem. The Conservative Party con

capable of taking care of themselves.

It is interesting to note that the operation of restricted hours has worked out in about the same fashion as the enforce

desire at present to plunge once more into a civil war such as disgraced its annals when De Valera had more power and influence in that country than he has now.

The "Exoneration" of Fascisti Leaders

THE

HE Matteotti sensation still disturbs the Italian Fascisti, and will continue to do so as long as freedom of the press and expression of personal opinion are repressed. It is not at all probable that Mussolini had any foreknowledge of the crime. On the other hand, it is hardly credible that a Socialist and anti-Fascist was kidnapped or killed by Mussolini's enemies in order to throw blame on the Fascist rule. That is what Mussolini seemed to infer when he said: "Only an enemy of mine who would sit up at night to devise diabolical schemes against me could have carried out this crime, which fills us all with loathing and disgust."

There is no doubt that Matteotti was kidnapped and that he was killed-that he killed himself is believed by no one, and the theory that he was killed while trying to escape his abductors is not supported by evidence and would not greatly lessen their guilt if true. It is equally certain that political rather than personal motives prompted the crime.

Five men accused of being the actual slayers have been held for trial in Rome, and when the trial takes place, probably in the early winter, the case will be a national sensation.

But the Court of Public Prosecutions, which held these men, at the same time exonerated three prominent Fascisti accused of instigating the crime-Cesare Rossi, former chief of the press bureau of the Ministry of the Interior; Giovanni Marinelli, former administrative Secretary-General of the Fascist Party; and Filippo Filippelli, former editor-in-chief of the Fascist newspaper "Roma."

The reasoning of the Court was peculiar from the Anglo-Saxon point of view. It was that, though these five men might have had a hand in plotting the kidnapping, they could not have instigated the actual killing because it was unpremeditated. There is evidence that the leader of the slayers took orders from the three noted Fascisti and that Matteotti was kidnapped in broad daylight in a motor car belonging to Filippelli, but the Court. held that these things went to prove that murder was not intended. Nothing seems

The murdered Deputy Matteotti

what is termed a civilian Cabinet, although military representation on it is still strong.

General Rivera naturally

heads the Ministry. Thus, nominally at least, ends the two years' rule of a military, unconstitutional chief, peaceably accepted by King and people. That Mussolini's example suggested Rivera's coup is generally admitted.

It is announced that this change will soon be followed by the convening of the Cortes, or Parliament, the revival of the suppressed Constitution, the selection of a Ministry on constitutional principles, and generally the resumption of normal government.

Various reasons are assigned for Rivera's course. One is the danger of opposition from hostile military cliques, another that of outbreaks among the Socialists and Communists of industrial sections such as Barcelona and Catalonia.

But it is fair to assume that Rivera is honestly desirous of restoring civil liberty and the rights of press and political parties so far as they had existed before he seized the reins. Reports have indicated that his Government has improved conditions in cities and country as regards corruption and bossism; that it has opened many hundreds of schools; and that it has in the party called the Patriotic Union an ally in support of order.

Abroad Spanish affairs are better than they were two years ago. In part Spain in Morocco has retrieved her former mili

tary disgrace and is working amicably

with France in the Riff War. Morocco was at the bottom of much of the unrest in Spain. There is still much to be feared from the syndicalists, the profiteers, and the industrial radicals who have come to some extent under Russian Bolshevik influence.

Spain usually moves slowly, but the probability is that her retreat from absolutism is sincere and that Rivera is honestly laying aside personal ambition for the national welfare.

What It Cost

TH

HE statistics recently published in England presenting the latest revision of Great Britain's war bill make curiously apposite reading at the present moment. They explain so much. "Out of sight, out of mind," is true of many things, but in no connection is it more true than in regard to the Great War, its costs and its consequences. Unemployment, short time, bad housing, the "Red menace," in England-all are seen in clearer view in the light of these figures. They speak for themselves.

During the four years of the war Great Britain put an army of 6,211,427 men and women in the field, of whom 743,702 were killed and 1,693,262 wounded.

In money the war cost Great Britain $50,000,000,000, and the interest on this sum and the gradual repayment of principal has raised the annual cost of government from $1,000,000,000 in 1914 to $4,000,000,000 in 1925. In 1914 the income-tax payer paid some $220,000,000 to the state. During the current year he will have to pay $1,680,000,000. During the same period the local taxes have risen from $355,000,000 to some $700,000,000.

In addition to these heavy charges, Great Britain is paying the United States $160,000,000 a year off her war debt of $4,250,000,000. She has already paid

$345,000,000, and this in spite of the fact that the countries which owe her money borrowed during the war have so far repaid her nothing. The total amount due to Great Britain in March last was: Russia, $3,783,525,000; France, $3,101,120,000; Italy, $2,912,550,000; other Allies, $365,535,000. In addition to this Great Britain's Dominions and colonies owe the mother country some $650,000,000.

Unemployment as the result of the war and the subsequent dislocation of world. trade had cost Great Britain over $2,000,000,000 in relief up to March, 1923, and the Poor Law relief alone today is costing the country some $200,000,000 a year. Add to these figures the increased cost of living for every home in the land, the shortage of houses which has cost the taxpayer several hundred millions of pounds to meet, and the problems created by the country's dwindling export trade, and the true magnitude and significance of Great Britain's future task and present position will be better appreciated.

The President to the

T

Country

WICE last week President Coolidge addressed the Nation. His Annual Message was transmitted to Congress on Tuesday, according to the precedent which prevailed from Jefferson's time until Wilson broke it. On the preceding day Mr. Coolidge delivered in person a speech before the delegates at the Convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation at Chicago.

Message and speech alike breathed that spirit of independence and selfreliance which is in the atmosphere of his native Vermont hills, and which he rightly discerns as the incorrigible spirit of the American people in all quarters of this country. Wherever any other spirit is to be found, the spirit of dependence upon the Government or of reliance upon some outside aid, it may be ascribed to foreign influence or to circumstances of exceptional depression. It is for that reason that President Coolidge has, to the surprise of the unobservant and the sophisticated, won the confidence of the country and has repeatedly elicited a response of approval from all sorts and conditions of his fellow-countrymen.

It is the opening part of his Message

that sets the tone for the rest of it. These sentences from the opening paragraphs are as distinctly American as a jazz rhythm or a cowboy or a New England meeting-house:

The age of perfection is still in the somewhat distant future, but it is more in danger of being retarded by mistaken Government activity than it is from lack of legislation. . . .

In our country the people are sovereign and independent, and must accept the resulting responsibilities. It is their duty to support themselves and support the Government. That is the business of the Nation, whatever the charity of the Nation may require. . . . Local self-government is one of our most precious possessions. . . . It ought not to abdicate its power through weakness or resign its authority through favor. It does not at all follow that because abuses exist it is the concern of the Federal Government to attempt their reform.

Society is in much more danger from encumbering the National Government beyond its wisdom to comprehend, or its ability to administer, than from leaving the local communities to bear their own burdens and remedy their own evils.

When, therefore, the President takes up the question of taxation, he naturally approaches it from the point of view of one who places the burden of proof upon the taxing power. "The wealth of our country," he says, "is not public wealth, but private wealth. It does not belong to the Government, it belongs to the people. The Government has no justification in taking private property except for public purposes. The power over the purse is the power over liberty." He regards the $820,000,000 which the people are paying in interest on their debt. as a heavy charge, and to get rid of that interest charge by getting rid of that debt itself without delay is, he says, in accordance with the policy of this country from the time of the Revolutionary War on. He points out also that it will be easier to pay this debt now than it will be later, when the purchasing power of the dollar increases.

His recommendation to Congress that it exercise its authority over appropriations by maintaining the budget system is one which the demagogues will not heed, but the majority of Congress, we are sure, will.

Most of what he says about taxation is in the nature of well-deserved praise to the non-partisan, intelligent, and prompt action of the Ways and Means Commit

tee of the House of Representatives in framing the new Tax Bill.

The President has little to add to what he has already said at other times about our foreign relations. He expresses the opinion that the next step toward a reduction of armaments should be the reduction of armies rather than of navies, and that is a peculiarly European question. He declares definitely as to the questions raised in the Chinese Customs Conference and the Commission Extra-territoriality that "it would be our policy so far as possible to meet the aspirations of China in all ways consistent with the interests of the countries involved."

on

The country, as a whole, we believe, will heartily approve what the President says in favor of our adherence to the Permanent Court of International Justice. As he points out, "a well-established line of precedents mark America's effort to effect the establishment of a court of this nature." He outlines again the reservations which are known now generally as the Harding-Hughes-Coolidge reservations. The judges, he points out, are acting as instruments, not of the League, but of the international statute that created them. He meets the objections which have been raised to the Court, and meets them fairly and in clear and simple language. He points out that there is no political entanglement involved in our joining the Court, that we do not propose to subject ourselves to compulsory jurisdiction, and that we will be just as free after we have joined it as we are now. And the following sentences might well be kept in mind by those who are going to discuss the question as it comes up before the Senate on the date of this issue of The Outlook.

They are not only compatible with that spirit of independence which the President embodies, but are a fine illustration of it:

If we are going to support any court, it will not be one that we have set up alone or which reflects only our ideals. Other nations have their customs and their institutions, their thoughts and their methods of life. If a court is going to be international, its composition will have to yield to what is good in all these various elements. Neither will it be possible to support a court which is exactly perfect, or under which we assume absolutely no obligations. If we are seeking that opportunity, we might as well declare that we are opposed to supporting any If any agreement is made, it

court.

will be because it undertakes to set up a tribunal which can do some of the things that other nations wish to have done. We shall not find ourselves bearing a disproportionate share of the world's burdens by our adherence, and we may as well remember that there is absolutely no escape for our country from bearing its share of the world's burdens in any case. We shall do far better service to ourselves and to others if we admit this and discharge. our duties voluntarily, than if we deny it and are forced to meet the same obligations unwillingly.

What he recommends as to National defense is largely covered in the recommendations of the President's Air Board, which we outline elsewhere in this issue, and what he says about agriculture he had already discussed more fully in his speech to the Convention at Chicago, and to that we shall recur later.

As to Muscle Shoals, to which we refer in connection with the report of the Muscle Shoals Commission, the President expresses what is virtually impatience at the squandering of time in discussion. He says that it has been discussed for months and years, and yet the whole market value of Muscle Shoals does not "represent much more than a first-class battleship." If Congress disposes of this property by sale, as the President recommends, it will be because the patience of the country has been worn out by the extremists who have been urging the Government to go into the business of supplying power to the cities and nitrates to the farms. In our judgment, the disposal by proper lease under Governmental regulation would afford a great opportunity for proper Governmental experimentation. But it will not be done unless men of divergent opinions become reasonable on the matter. We hope that Congress will dispose of this matter in a way to serve as a model for the proper control of our water-power resources.

As to coal, he definitely recommends Congress to lodge with the President and the Departments of Commerce and Labor authority to deal with an emergency. Congress has neglected the coal report. We hope that the President's words will remind them of their duty in this matter. As the President says, the coal situation is "very close to a National economic failure."

In dealing with prohibition he specially requests "of the people observance, of the public officers continuing efforts for enforcement, and of the Congress

favorable action on the Budget recommendation for the prosecution of this work."

In waterway development he refers particularly to the Colorado River project, of which we hope to say more in the future. He recommends a consideration of the question whether the Nation is not spending too much money on Alaska and whether more authority should not be given to the Governor of the Philippines.

In his speech at Chicago he aroused a real enthusiasm in his audience by his tribute to the farmers. As he said, "agriculture has become a profession." He pointed out the distinction between the landowner in the Old World and the landowner in the New. In the Old World the soil was owned by those who had received it as a gift from the crown and those who worked on the soil were virtually in servitude, and the tradition. of working on the land in Europe is bound up with these facts. On the other hand, America, as the President says, "never fully came under this blighting influence." From the first those who cultivated the soil owned it and they were the men who established this Nation, and upon these facts rests American tradition. For those reasons American farmers "prefer the sound policy of maintaining their freedom and their own initiative as individuals, or to limit them only as they voluntarily form group associations. They do not wish to put Government into the farming business." And he said later in his address: "To have agriculture worth anything it must rest on an independent business basis. It cannot at the same time be part private business and part Government business."

The President outlined an agricultural policy that is fully in accord with these principles. It is a policy opposed to Governmental price fixing or anything that will lead to it, and in favor of measures to encourage co-operation among farmers for the progress of their business.

And he ends this speech with a note with which he begins his Message, for he finds that spirit of independence especially strong among those who farm the land. The life of the farmer, he says, is the life that this Nation has been "so solicitous to maintain and improve. . . . It has been the life of freedom and independence, of religious convictions, and of abiding character. In its past it has made and saved America and helped rescue the world. In its future it holds a supreme promise of human progress.'

...

The Comity of the Northwest

A

S this issue of The Outlook goes

to press there is gathered in Seattle a conference called by the President of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce looking towards the union of all the cities on the Pacific coast in a publicity campaign, a legitimate effort to inform the rest of the United States of the beauties and attractions that border upon the Pacific. This is an extension of an idea which the cities of the Northwest have supported under the title of the Evergreen Playground Campaign. In the Northwest have been associated the American cities Bellingham, Tacoma, Seattle, and the British Columbian cities Victoria and Vancouver. All of which can be taken as evidence that the friction made manifest by George Marvin's article on Seattle is as needless as it is hurtful to the best interests, not only of the Northwest, but of the whole country.

That the existence of this friction is recognized in the Northwest, that it is not merely a figment of Eastern imagination, is indicated by an editorial which appeared a few months ago in a weekly journal published in Seattle. The "Business Chronicle of the Pacific Northwest," in urging Seattle to withdraw its opposition to changing the name of Mount Rainier to Mount Tacoma, said, frankly:

Seattle has more to gain than to lose by "keeping peace in the family."

Let us have unity of purpose, let us not waste our strength in silly squabbling that gets us nowhere beyond an emergency search for arnica and courtplaster. If unity of purpose, the pulltogether spirit so sadly lacking, is to be had by giving in to Tacoma in a matter that she considers vital and which cannot in the least injure Seattle, why not let Tacoma have what she wants?

Seattle has in this matter an opportunity to show the world how big she is in mental caliber, how broad in outlook, how great in character.

Seattle will never have a better chance to wipe out in some degree the unfortunate antipathy which exists throughout the Pacific Northwest by reason of what the smaller communities regard as her dog-in-the-manger attitude. This feeling may be right, or it may be wrong; but it is thereand greatly to the disadvantage of Seattle business men.

On November 25 the Seattle "PostIntelligencer" stated the case for Seattle with most admirable restraint and good