CHINO-JAPANESE NEGOTIATIONS

If the reports from Peking are to be accepted, the negotiations between Japan and China have reached a crisis. Many of the so-called "demands" of Japan have been acceded to by China; but Group V, which is reported to include demands for the employment by China of Japanese advisers in political, financial, and military affairs; the supervision of the Chinese police; the right of Japanese ownership of land for the building of hospi tals, schools, and churches; Japanese supervision over the manufacture or purchase by China of munitions of war; various railway and mining rights, and the right of the Japanese to propagate Buddhism in China, has, so it is said, been rejected.

The Outlook does not print these demands as news; it simply reports them. As a matter of fact, they are probably as inaccurate as the majority of other reports regarding these so-called demands. It is further reported that negotiations between the two countries have ceased; that the Government at Tokyo is about to issue an ultimatum to the Government at Peking; and that the latter Government is concentrating a large body of troops for the defense of China.

A few weeks ago there were very definite reports of protest to Tokyo from Washington, London, and Paris; and reports also of conferences between the three Powers, and between Great Britain and the United States. It is interesting to note that Sir Edward Grey, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, and one of the frankest statesmen living, said, in answer to an inquiry in Parliament, that, beyond a brief informal conversation with Ambassador Page in February, no communications on the subject of Japanese demands had passed between the two Governments. He confirmed the report of the presence of Japanese troops at Hankau; but that force has very seriously diminished in number from the newspaper accounts.

!

There are, according to Sir Edward Grey, 39 officers, 633 men, and 30 machine guns Meanwhile, if President Wilson is correctly reported, he regards the situation between China and Japan as distinctly hopeful, and thinks that it will soon be so clarified that the position of this Government towards the two Powers may be disclosed. Although the United States Government has been scrupulously silent, it has undoubtedly been fully cognizant of all that has taken place in Peking,

It is much to be hoped that the negotiations have reached a point where publicity will make an end of the many confusing, misleading, and untrustworthy reports that have come from the Far East.

WOMEN AND PEACE

The Women's Peace Congress at The Hague has met, deliberated, and adjourned. Among the expressions of opinion by resolution of the convention were, that in future there should be no secret treaties; that moral, social, and economic pressure should be brought to bear on nations that will not arbitrate disagreements; that no territory should be transferred without the consent of the people living in it; that children should be educated to an ideal of constructive peace; that women have a responsibility toward war that can be effective only through political rights; that justice and humanity require that peace negotiations in this war begin at once; that armaments should be nationalized-that is, we suppose, arms and ammunition be made only by Government factories; and that neutral countries should immediately offer "continuous mediation" without an armistice-whatever that may mean. A permanent International Woman's Peace Committee was formed.

We are sorry to have to say it, but the deliberations of the Congress, of which Miss Jane Addams, of Chicago, was President, have had little effect upon public opinion, and none at all upon the Governments involved

in the European war. Every right-minded person of either sex shares with Miss Addams and her colleagues a horror of war and a desire to find some basis upon which civilized peoples of the world may live in international peaceful relations. But we believe that the overwhelming public opinion of neutral nations is in sympathy with Mademoiselle Hamer, a Belgian delegate to the Hague Congress, who protested in one of the meetings of the Congress that the women of the world should seek for justice before they seek for peace. She said:

I am a Belgian before everything, and I cannot think as you do. There can be no peace without justice. The war must continue until the Belgian wrongs have been righted. There must be no mediation except at the bar of justice.

The Associated Press despatches say that at this sentiment " a part of the audience broke into cheers." Our criticism of "the part which did not break into cheers is based upon Miss Addams's own signed cable despatches to the Chicago "Herald" and the New York Times." The following incident, for example, is apparently considered by Miss Addams as one of the important episodes of the Congress. We give it in her own words:

Another moment of high emotion came when the Congress rose in grateful assent to the suggestion of the Dutch Arrangements Committee that the huge consignment of flowers donated by growers throughout the Kingdom be sent to the hospitals for wounded soldiers in the countries near by-England, France, Belgium, and Germany-military authorities and the Red Cross officials having already gladly agreed to see to their distribution.

mo

The grave and terrible questions of the great European war are not settled by ments of high emotion" of this kind. We hope that the Women's Peace Congress at The Hague has not inadvertently put another weapon into the hands of those doubters who assert that women are emotional and unfit to take an active part with men in matters of great public import.

THE TRIAL AT SYRACUSE

Last week a staff correspondent of The Outlook described the earlier sessions of the suit for damages on the charge of libel brought against Mr. Roosevelt by Mr. Barnes. In one or more letters to follow from our correspondent the story will be carried on to its conclusion. Meanwhile it may

be noted that the second week of the trial, although substantial advance was made by the defense, was less dramatic than the first to the view of the general public, partly because the interest did not center so much around the personality of either plaintiff or defendant, partly because the introduction and reading of letters from Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Barnes to Mr. Platt and the replies, and the sifting out of testimony relating to the printing ring at Albany, in which Mr. Barnes was, as is claimed, a silent and profiting partner, were interrupted by nice questions of law or involved in business intricacies.

Notably the most stirring episode of this second part of the defense was the appearance and testimony of ex-Senator Frederick M. Davenport, who described the defeat of the Hinman-Green Primary Bill by a combination of Democratic and Republican Senators of the strict organization type, thereby supporting Mr. Roosevelt's statement that "the interests of Mr. Barnes and Mr. Murphy are fundamentally identical," and that "the two bosses will always be found fighting on the same side," and "really form the all-powerful invisible government. Mr. Davenport's straightforwardness and forcefulness made a strong impression on the hearers. Mr. Ivins, in cross-examining, was injudicious enough to heckle the witness on his remark to Senator Grattan about Mr. Barnes when the latter was in hearing : "You are the mouthpiece of a political Nero who fiddles just outside this chamber while Rome burns." In response to Mr. Ivins, Mr. Davenport replied: "Mr. Barnes was not fiddling, but he was ruthless like Nero.

I believed that our institutions were in grave danger on account of what I had seen going on the usurpation of authority over the Legislature by a power outside of the Legislature."

Mr. Harvey D. Hinman and Mr. Josiah D. Newcomb-both Senators at the timegave corroborative testimony of Mr. Davenport's exposition of bi-partisan combinations for purposes antagonistic to the general welfare.

Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, now Assistant Secretary of the Navy, a Democrat and a distant cousin of the defendant, stated that Senator Grady had told him at the time of the deadlock in the Legislature over the Senatorial fight that there was no chance of breaking the deadlock because Barnes had arranged with Murphy to keep hands off.

THE WESTERN RAILWAY WAGE DECISION

A canvass of editorial opinion in American newspapers in regard to the recent decision of the Federal Board of Arbitration, affording certain concessions in wages, hours, and conditions of labor to sixty-four thousand locomotive engineers, firemen, and hostlers employed by ninety-eight Western railways in the United States and Canada, shows a disposition on the part of many editorial writers to hail the work of the Arbitration Board as a failure" a compromise that suits no one." With this view The Outlook does not agree.

The dispute between these Western railway owners and their employees may be said to have begun in October, 1913, when the employees demanded increased pay, a more acceptable basis of reckoning pay, and other concessions. Both sides appealed to the Federal Board of Mediation, established under the Newlands Amendment to the Erd

man Law. The subsequent decision of the arbitrators was accepted by the trainmen, but rejected by the railway managers. This rejection so angered the employees that they were on the point of striking last August, when, at the outbreak of the war, President Wilson persuaded the managers to submit the whole matter for arbitration once again.

The members of the Board of Arbitration, which made its decision the other day, were Judge Peter C. Pritchard, Presiding Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Chairman Charles Nagel, exSecretary of Commerce and Labor; W. L. Park, Vice-President of the Illinois Central; H. E. Byram, Vice-President of the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy; Timothy Shea, VicePresident of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; and Frederick A. Burgess, Assistant Grand Chief Engineer of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.

Space forbids a résumé of the detailed award made by this Board. Among other items, however, increased overtime pay was granted to passenger engineers and firemen. The railway employees were disappointed by the failure of the Board to grant many of the demands most desired by them, including time-and-a-half payment for overtime work in freight and switching service and the fivehour day in the passenger service; and the two labor representatives on the Board refused to sign the award and filed a dissenting opinion. Judge Pritchard, moreover, according to the newspapers, expressed an opinion

that "the freight rates as well as the yard rates for firemen and engineers agreed upon by the Board are not as high as they should be." On their part, the representatives of the railway managers, Messrs. Byram and Park, declared that the placing of their signatures on the award did not signify "approval of it in principle or in detail."

Despite this dissatisfaction of the direct parties to the controversy, and despite the fact that the award is binding for only one year from May 10, and that the dispute will then probably be reopened, there is much ground for public satisfaction with the situation. The fact that both the representatives of capital and the representatives of labor are displeased with a decision in a labor dispute is no indication that a fair measure of justice has not been attained and that the public's interests have not been safeguarded. And, moreover, every time that the principle of arbitration is accepted in a quarrel between labor and capital another step is taken away from the intolerable idea of industrial war to the knife.

A PROSPECTIVE HERESY TRIAL

The daily papers report an attack upon Union Theological Seminary coming simultaneously and apparently by preconcerted action from three quarters.

Dr. John Fox, of New York City, according to this report, has issued a pamphlet indicting the Seminary for teaching false doctrines and the New York Presbytery for indorsing such teaching by licensing the graduates from the Seminary. Dr. Fox also calls upon the General Assembly to investigate the New York Presbytery because of its alleged laxness. A volunteer body of Presbyterian clergymen have at the same time issued an appeal to the churches to unite in defense of certain doctrines, or, to speak more accurately, of certain phraseologies which professors in the Union Theological Seminary are supposed not to accept as accurate definitions of the teaching either of the Bible or of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and urging the churches not to call to the pastorate any man who does not agree with this committee in their definitions. This circular, however, does not mention the Union Theological Seminary by name. The

third source of attack is the preparation of a proposal to be submitted to the General Assembly at its next session, to be held this

month, preparing the way for action by the Assembly forbidding presbyteries to send their students to Union Theological Seminary or to license or ordain its graduates until their errors of doctrine are corrected by further instruction under other teachers.

Our readers will remember that in 1893 Dr. Charles A. Briggs, Professor of Biblical Theology in Union Theological Seminary, was tried and convicted of heresy by the General Assembly, who could and did remove him from the Presbyterian ministry, but could not remove him from his professor's chair; that notwithstanding his trial and condemnation. he was received as a clergyman in good and regular standing by the Episcopal Church and continued teaching in the Union Theological Seminary until his death. Subsequently a charge of heresy was brought by Dr. John Fox against Dr. Charles Cuthbert Hall, the President of the Seminary, but Dr. Fox found no support and the charge was not pushed to a trial. We here report simply this new attempt against the Union Theological Seminary as we find it reported in the press, only adding that the attempt to repress supposed heresies by either ecclesiastical or civil tribunals has never proved a success in American church history; its effect has been, on the contrary, to give the doctrines complained of a wider circulation. The American way to meet erroneous teaching, whether in religion, morals, or politics, is not by repression, but by open and free discussion.

PENROSE AND BRUMBAUGH

The State of Pennsylvania has not had the reputation it really deserves. It has too long been considered a stand-pat State, socially and morally, as well as politically.

The Progressive campaign of 1912, however, showed that Pennsylvania could no longer be regarded as a surely reactionary State. And now a new campaign has confirmed what the Progressives proved. The campaign has been conducted by one man. He is the Governor of the State. It is fitting that an executive should develop a State's latent moral strength, and that is the enduring distinction which must always attach itself to the name of Martin Grove Brumbaugh, Governor of Pennsylvania.

For several years he was Superintendent of Schools in Huntingdon County; he then became President of Juniata College, and since 1906 has been Superintendent of the Philadel

He stands in Republi

phia Public Schools. can politics for what President Wilson does in Democratic-that is to say, he has an educationist's high ideals. He had been accounted a genuinely fine public servant and a man of real influence. Hence he was nominated for Governor at the same time that Mr. Penrose was nominated for another term in the United States Senate, so that the Republican ticket might gain in respectability.

It was a wise move. The ticket was

elected. Excellent as had been Dr. Brumbaugh's previous reputation, the wheelhorses of the Republican party in Pennsylvania hardly anticipated that in general he would be other than subservient to the demands of their machine. Their eyes were somewhat opened, however, by the programme of desirable legislation outlined by Mr. Brumbaugh during his campaign for the Governorship. The principal items were three: A Child Labor Law, a Local Option Law, and a Workmen's Compensation Law.

Of these the Pennsylvania Legislature has now passed a Child Labor Bill; the lower house has passed a Workmen's Compensation Bill, but has defeated a Local Option Bill.

CHILD LABOR

Of the three measures the Child Labor Bill is the one which has attracted special attention throughout the country, for the good reason that Pennsylvania employs more children under sixteen than does any other State in the Union. As a matter of fact, Pennsylvania employs more than twice the number employed in New York. Outside of the cotton-mill States of the South, Pennsylvania is practically the only manufacturing State that has failed to protect its children.

Again, the Pennsylvania industries in which children are employed are especially tryingthe glass factories and the textile industries, employments in which extremes of heat must be endured and in which the dust-laden air conduces to tuberculosis. These industries made a tremendous but unsuccessful fight in the upper house of the Legislature to have the bill which passed in the lower house amended so as to permit children of fourteen to work, as now, ten hours in any one day.

The bill for which the Governor has already won the lower house provides for a week of fifty-one hours, and not more than nine hours in any one day. Where the edu