spending their money in them every night." This kind of spending this merchant evidently regarded as of no advantage to business. The best efforts of this investigator failed to discover any one actively engaged in the retail dry-goods business who favored a return to a "wet" city.

On leaving the city the reporter of the "Economist" sat opposite a drummer. Falling into a conversation, the salesman asked to see the data which the investigator had collected. After the drummer had finished reading he asked, "Well, is it wrong or right?" You've got it right," answered the drum

66

No generation has a monopoly of bad taste, or rather it never has until it is seen in perspective by the more enlightened critics of the generation which follows. Plain maple gives place to mahogany, mahogany to black walnut, black walnut to cast iron and gilded brass; and each change is celebrated by a ripple of laughter that is stilled only by the ridicule of the adherents of a better because newer style.

An illustration of the truth of this statement is to be found in an exhibition now being held in New York City of household furnishings of the decade between 1870 and 1880. In this merciless exhibit are many dear relics of that unforgetable, if not unforgivable, epoch-a zinc Venus de Milo with a clock inserted in her stomach, mustache cups labeled " For Grandpa," a rope-framed lithograph of Washington, a thermometer "appliquéd" upon the handle of a brass parasol, a cataract painted upon a wooden chopping-bowl, the inevitable what-not, china dogs, a velvet-lined bread-toaster, and worsted mottoes highly moral and satisfyingly sentimental.

Of course the present generation that sits (when its clothes permit) in elephantine mission furniture built like a battle-ship and

guaranteed strong enough to serve as a drydock; that lives (in high scorn of gingerbread work) in fragile bungalows, surrounded by colonnades of concrete columns that might with great propriety be used as underpinning for the Pyramids; that cannot ride from East Hohonkus to Hohonkus Center without embellishing its "car" with banners enough to outfit the North Atlantic squadron-represents an infinite advance from the trashy taste of 1880. It is strange what benighted heathen we once were. From the artistic to the attic, to the antique, the gamut ranges. The world certainly moves-in circles.

THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU

Somewhat more than a year ago there was established by Act of Congress a new bureau in the Department of Labor entitled the "Children's Bureau." The work of this Bureau was defined by the Act in the following language:

The said Bureau shall investigate and report to said Department upon all matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child-life among all classes of our people, and shall especially investigate the questions of infant mortality, the birth rate, orphanage, juvenile courts, desertion, dangerous occupations, accidents and diseases of children, employment, legislation affecting children in the several States and Territories. But no official, agent, or representative of said Bureau shall, over the objection of the head of the family, enter any house used exclusively as a family residence. The chief of said Bureau may from time to time publish the results of these investigations in such manner and to such extent as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.

Miss Julia C. Lathrop was appointed Chief of this new Bureau. She is a native of Illinois, the daughter of a former Congressman, a graduate of Vassar, and has for nearly twenty years been associated with Miss Jane Addams in the work of Hull House, Chicago. For twelve years she was a member of the Illinois State Board of Charities, and has been for some years Vice-President of the Chicago School of Civics and Philanthropy. By birth, education, temperament, and experience she is peculiarly qualified to direct the work which is being done and is to be done by the Children's Bureau. This was the judgment of those best qualified to speak when she was appointed. Her first report, recently issued, justifies this judgment.

Among other things, the Bureau has made

a review of child labor legislation in every State and Territory of the United States. It reports on the actual practices and conditions of child labor. In other words, it gives publicity, after scientific investigation and under the authority of the Government, to the actual facts about child labor in all its aspects.

In her report, Miss Lathrop asks for an appropriation of $164,000 to carry on the work of the Bureau in 1915. This at best is a small sum for so important a work. More than three times this amount has been appropriated to eradicate hog cholera! The Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives cut this sum down to $25,000. The House itself, however, with a larger and, in our judgment, a more statesmanlike view than its Committee, restored to the Bureau the full appropriation of $164,000.

It is greatly to be hoped that the Senate will concur in the House action, and that in its concurrence it will clear up an ambiguity in the language used by the House in granting this appropriation. The House, apparently, although we can hardly believe intentionally, limits the expenditure of this appropriation to the investigation of infant mortality and dangerous occupations of children. The Bureau, of course, should be permitted to carry out the work of a complete, thorough, and comprehensive study of, and publicly report on, every phase of child labor. Employers of child workers cannot afford to let it be suggested that they urged their representatives in Congress to limit the activities of the Bureau in studying child labor conditions.

A LECTURE HALL ON WHEELS

Not long ago The Outlook published an account of the introduction on two railways of quick-lunch cars in conjunction with the regular dining-car service, as an extra convenience for the traveling public. Now comes the Chicago and Northwestern Railway, with another example of the modern spirit of the big railways of the country, so antipodal to the old spirit which was summed up in that classic remark of an old-school railway man, "The public be damned!" The Chicago and Northwestern has equipped an ordinary passenger coach as a moving lecture hall, which travels over the entire system of the country twice a year in order that the railway's employees may have an

opportunity thoroughly to familiarize themselves with all signals through stereopticon lectures, that the public may thus be subjected to a minimum of danger from accidents caused by defective signaling or faulty reading of signals.

One-half of the car is given over to the lecture-room, which seats fifty people. In the other half are the living quarters of the instructor, the heating plant, and a dark room and other facilities for the developing of pictures and the making of lantern slides. The car visits all the important points on each division, and at each stop lectures are given twice a day illustrated by pictures taken in the locality in which the pictures are shown, as it has been found that this adds to the interest of the pictures for the employees of the railway, and aids them in understanding the explanations and instructions given.

Every possible signal or interlocking device and all difficulties and unusual problems that may arise to bother employees are fully explained, and the proper course of action in emergencies is impressed upon the men, who have shown that they appreciate the opportunity given to make themselves better all-around railway workers, and consequently higher wage earners.

SAFEGUARDING THE

SAVINGS

The worst feature of the Siegel bankruptcy in New York City was the fact that the firm ran a private savings bank in connection with their business, and that as fast as they received their deposits they turned the money into their own business with no reasonable or adequate security, so that, upon the disastrous collapse of the firm, hundreds of people of slender means lost almost all of their money. That such a thing should be possible under the laws of New York State seems almost incredible. But tardy legislation is better than no legislation. We are glad to know that Governor Glynn, of New York, has just signed a new State Banking Law which, among other things, will prevent the recurrence of such an outrage as that just described.

Hereafter depositors in private banks will have the same protection from the law that depositors in savings banks have already enjoyed. It will be illegal for a private banker to convert to his own use the deposits received by him, nor can he loan such moneys to a partnership of which he is a member

or to a corporation in which he is largely interested. A private banker, moreover, will be compelled to keep his banking assets entirely separate from all other accounts, and to give his depositors a first lien upon the investments made with their money. In other ways savings are guarded by the provisions of the new law. Thus savings banks are compelled to set aside a percentage of earnings at each dividend period for a guaranty fund, to carry the bank through in unexpected demands, as in a panic, which might throw it into insolvency; while at the inception of a savings bank enterprise bonds must be given by the incorporators to protect its solvency.

The new banking bill enlarges the functions of State banks and trust companies in some respects, so that now they may, like National banks, make acceptances, issue letters of credit, and maintain branches abroad. These powers are guarded by limitations and restrictions.

The new law also harmonizes the State banking legislation with the Federal Reserve Act.

It is perfectly evident that there was pressing need for a new banking law in New York State, and the act just signed appears to meet the requirements of the day. But most welcome and most human are the provisions already noted which will, it is earnestly to be hoped, protect the earnings of workers from such rapacity and unscrupulousness as have been recently so signally illustrated.

A WAR AGAINST RATS

No more significant evidence of the advance in medical science and public sanitation exists than the fact that the bubonic plague, once dreaded with the utmost horror, does not now create public alarm in anything like the measure it once did. About a year and a half ago The Outlook noted the appearance of cases of the bubonic plague in Porto Rico and Cuba, but with the news told also of the prompt measures adopted to prevent the spread of the disease. Those measures were thoroughly effective. Now the disease has appeared again in Havana; but all of the authorities who are competent to judge declare that they do not fear its spread even in the city.

One of the chief reasons for this confidence is the fact that the sanitation of Havana, once a pest-hole and a danger to the United States, is now under the direction of Dr. Guiteras,

who did so much to check and prevent yellow fever epidemics in the South, and who had a long term of experience in the service of the United States Marine Hospital. Dr. Guiteras has been at work on disease problems in Havana for years, and is one of the three or four best-fitted men in the world for the task of exterminating the bubonic plague. Under his direction several blocks in the business part of Havana have been isolated and the houses (many of which contain stores beneath and residences above) have been fumigated with hydrocyanic acid. A still more effective way of fighting the disease is the systematic destruction of house rats.

When the bubonic plague first appeared in San Francisco years ago, a fatally mistaken policy of concealment was adopted. Later Passed Assistant Surgeon Rupert Blue, now Surgeon-General of our Marine Hospital service, fought the disease openly, independently, and without concealment, and crushed it entirely. It was when the bubonic plague was shrouded in mystery that it was really dangerous. We believe it was a Japanese scientist who discovered the micro-organism which causes the disease; other specialists traced the transmission of the disease through fleas which fasten on rats. Since those discoveries rat-killing campaigns and other precautions against the disease have made the threat of an invasion of the plague no longer serious. The thoroughness of the defensive war now going on in Havana makes the danger to American ports very slight.

THE INDIANA PROGRESSIVES

The Indiana Progressive State Convention is of interest to the whole country chiefly because its platform, which was unanimously adopted, pledges the party to work for the elimination of all breweries and saloons in the State, and indorses the Hobson resolution now before Congress looking towards National prohibition. In advocating National prohibition the Indiana Progressives are following the course of the Progressives of Ohio and Maine. Whether this is the most feasible method of dealing with the drink evil is a question that demands careful consideration, but it is very significant of the growing sentiment throughout the country against the liquor traffic and the vice it promotes a sentiment which deserves the sympathy of every good citizen. The platform opposes the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes, calls for a law to

compel the giving of ample notice before a strike or lockout, and advocates a minimum wage for women.

As to electoral reform, the platform indorses the initiative, referendum, and recall for all elective and judicial offices; it calls for a State-wide primary law, for the short ballot, for equal suffrage for women, for home rule for cities, and for the elimination of the judiciary from politics.

On matters of foreign policy, the platform attacks the present Federal Administration for its Mexican policy in general. This criticism, it should be noted, was made before the present crisis occurred. In particular, we are glad to say, the platform opposes the approval of any treaty with Colombia which provides for the payment of $25,000,000 to that country.

Ex-Senator Beveridge was the unanimous choice of the Convention as the party's candidate for United States Senator.

THE MARY CURZON

HOSTEL

The problem of women's lodging-houses has now been made somewhat easier of solution in London, at least, by the opening of the Mary Curzon Hostel. It is a handsome and hospitable-looking building in King's Cross Road near Euston Station-a very central location. The Hostel has been established through the generosity of Earl Curzon, with the aid of his relatives and friends, as a memorial to the late Lady Curzon, who was Miss Mary Leiter, of Washington.

The principle governing the Hostel is that it shall provide lodging, and food if desired, for women in need, but who are able to pay a very small sum. The Hostel does not belong to that class of charities which provide something for nothing. Its scale of charges would indicate that no attempt is made to make a profit; at the same time it is expected to make the institution self-supporting.

For instance, a "cubicle," or small bedroom, costs about 12 cents a night, or about 60 cents a week. Tea and bread and butter may be had for 2 cents; a heartier breakfast or supper, of course, costs more. But a dinner consisting of soup, two kinds of vegetables, and pudding may be had for 8 cents. In addition to sleeping accommodation there are lavatories and private bath-rooms, and also a kitchen where women can cook their own food.

As to admissions, the Hostel is to be man

that is to

aged just as a hotel is managed say, no questions are asked of applicants and no references are demanded; but, if a woman shows herself to be a drunkard or otherwise undesirable, she is asked to leave.

In every great city women in search of employment, domestics temporarily out of a place, and women who work all day in factories need such a hostel, not only for shelter but also as a haven of respectability and rest. The greatest city in the world is now better off than it has been in this respect because of this memorial to one who, in America, England, and India, was ever alive to the necessities of her less fortunate sisters.

MEXICO

Mr. Bryan in his "Commoner," discussing the Mexican situation, says, "The question is not what we can do, but what ought we to do." It is both what ought we to do and what can we do. Might does not make right, but might does create responsibilities and impose obligations. The question before the American people to-day is this: What duty, if any, does a rich, strong nation owe to a weaker neighbor at its door which is being plundered by banditti? An abstract question is sometimes more easily answered if it is made concrete; a complicated question if it is simplified.

Three men going up from Jericho to Jerusalem saw by the roadside, according to the parable, a traveler who had been set upon by thieves and left beaten and half dead by the wayside. Two of the men passed by ; the third stopped to carry succor to the wounded stranger. This man has ever since been known in literature as the Good Samaritan. Suppose he had passed that way

a little earlier and had seen the thieves beating and plundering the stranger; would he have been a bad Samaritan if he had interfered? and a wise Samaritan if he had said, If I interfere my business will be injured, my clothes may be damaged, and my head may be broken?

For over a year our neighbor to the south of us has been devastated by banditti. The rights neither of men nor of property have been respected. The rules of civilized warfare have been disregarded; prisoners have been massacred, non-combatants robbed and murdered. Our Government has rightly refused to recognize as a lawful government

the faction which happened to be in possession of the capital. It has pursued for over a year a policy of watchful waiting. At length this faction, believing our patience to be the result of feebleness and fear, has insulted our Nation and refused to make the demanded apology. The incident at Tampico was in itself insignificant. So in itself is an electric spark insignificant; but this electric spark has touched the accumulating indignation of the American people. Forbearance has ceased to be a virtue. No apology which Huerta can now make will satisfy them. They will not be satisfied until anarchy is ended, a just government is established, order is restored, and life and property are secure in Mexico.

It is our duty to protect our fellow-citizens who reside in that bandit-ridden country. It is true that America might years ago have notified all Americans that if they left their own territory they left at their own risk. It might have refused to protect American seamen from impressment by Great Britain. It might have refused to protect American ships from Mediterranean pirates. It might have thought to protect itself from war by cowardice. But that has never been its policy. It has never been the policy of any civilized nation. Our citizens in great numbers have gone into Mexico to develop its resources and work in its industries, under the implied assurance of our protection. It is impossible for us now, without dishonor, to leave them to be plundered, exiled, and murdered

as they have been by the score.

We have warned off foreign nations from interference with nations on this side of the Atlantic. We have made it clear that any war on our sister republics would be regarded as an act unfriendly to us. We have made it clear to them that their interference to protect their own citizens in Mexico would incur our hostility. We cannot say to England, You shall not protect Englishmen in Mexico and we will not. We might half a century ago have abandoned the Monroe Doctrine. We might have allowed Maximilian to establish a monarchy in Mexico and left England to demand the protection of her citizens from Maximilian-and his sponsor, France. But this we did not do. The foreigners who have settled in Mexico have settled there under our implied obligation to furnish them the protection which we insisted their own Governments should not furnish. Now that our obligation is brought home to us by the persistent violation of their rights,

we cannot with honor, or indeed with safety, cavalierly refuse to recognize and fulfill that obligation.

The great mass of the Mexican people are naturally peaceful. They are too peaceful. It is because they are not fighters that they are plundered, sometimes under the form of law, sometimes by flagrant and undisguised lawlessness. It is true that we are not going to make war against the people of Mexico. If we make war at all, it will be for the people of Mexico; it will be to protect the industrious residents, native and foreign, against men whose sole industry is that of the bandit. It is true that intervention by one nation in the affairs of another nation should be undertaken only in case of dire necessity. But sometimes it ought to be undertaken. Non-intervention is the rule, but is not a universal rule. The European Powers ought to have intervened to prevent the massacres of the Armenians in Turkey. England did right to interfere to prevent monstrous cruelty by Belgians in the Congo.

The wrongs to our own citizens, to the citizens of other nations, and to the Mexicans themselves clamor to us for help. We have preserved the policy of watchful waiting too long. We go to Mexico not to avenge an insult, but to fulfill a duty too long put off.

There are two views of our duty in the present situation, which are presented in strong contrast by the respective utterances of President Wilson and Senator Lodge.

Says President Wilson at the conclusion of his Message :

I, therefore, come to ask your approval that I should use the armed forces of the United States in such ways and to such an extent as may be necessary to obtain from General Huerta and his adherents the fullest recognition of the rights and dignity of the United States, even amid distressing conditions now unhappily obtaining in Mexico.

In contrast with this is the view of Senator Lodge as embodied in his resolution presented to the Senate:

Resolved, That the state of unrestrained violence and anarchy which exists in Mexico, the number of unchecked and unpunished murders of American citizens and the spoliation of their property in that country, the impossibility of securing protection or redress by diplomatic methods in the absence of lawful and effective authority, the inability of Mexico to discharge its international obligations, the unprovoked