and turned it into a geometrical problem. He made figures of eight in that area, up and down sometimes twenty feet or fifty feet, sometimes skimming the earth, and ended by coming down. neatly just in front of the grand stand. He could afford a little dramatic display; he had made his record for longer flight earlier in the day, and it stood, the only record on the bulletin board that had been set up. All that they say about the back wind of a propeller is rot. To-day, when Paulhan on a Voisin machine was doing a magnificent flight of sixty kilometers, Lefebvre maliciously followed him, going twice as fast as Paulhan could, and just in front of the grand stand he flew right under him and rose in front of him-no back wind. The Wright people are playing with the others, doing all kinds of diabolic things to prove the superiority of their machines. This afternoon Delagrange on his fast little Bleriot had just completed his first round, when out from over the sheds, like a pirate, came Comte de Lambert on his Wright. It was a direct challenge for a race. He was up with Delagrange in a moment, but Delagrange refused the race and came to earth at once."

AN AMERICAN VICTORY AND A GERMAN FEAT

The aeroplane meet at Rheims came to an end with a fine victory for the only American contestant, Mr. Glenn H. Curtiss. He won the International Cup of Aviation by making two rounds of the course, about twelve miles, in just under sixteen minutes, at a speed of forty-five miles an hour. The winning of this prize by an American insures the holding of the next International aviation meeting in this country. Mr. Curtiss went to Rheims with the deliberate intention of winning the International Cup if it lay in his power, and his success was the deserved reward of single-hearted effort and intelligent planning. For this prize, as was not the case with most of the others, contestants were allowed but one trial; and Mr. Curtiss was the first of the competitors to make the attempt. But he set a mark which none of them could equal. After all, however, speed is not the thing for which the aeroplane drivers need most to strive. The heavier

than-air machine must go fast or it cannot stay up. Since speed it must have or fail, little more speed does not count for so much. But endurance is not so easy to come by; nor is carrying capacity. So the accomplishments of Mr. Farman, who flew over one hundred and ten miles alone, and on another day carried two passengers around the six-mile course in about ten minutes, are fuller of promise for the future. And it is these aspects of the problem of flight which give the greatest significance to the voyage from Lake Constance to Berlin of the Zeppelin III, the big German dirigible, which was made while the aeroplanes were contesting at Rheims. The journey of three hundred and fifty miles was not made in one flight, for the air-ship was compelled by a broken propeller to make a halt for repairs at Bitterfeld, eighty miles from Berlin. The Zeppelin III reached Berlin on Sunday, the 29th, having left Friedrichshafen on Friday. It was welcomed by the Kaiser, and, it seemed, not only the entire population of the city, but thousands from the provinces as well. With Kaiser Wilhelm when Count Zeppelin landed from his big airliner was Orville Wright, and the two great exponents of the two branches of aerial navigation greeted each other cordially. The Zeppelin's voyage was not sensationally record-breaking; but an airship which can leave its home port, fly two hundred and seventy miles in varying weather against head winds, carrying nine men, break a propeller, descend safely, repair damages, rise again and go eighty miles farther, land easily, and at its pilot's wish start off home again, will, in the succinct British phrase, "take a lot of beating."

Breakfast in New York Wednesday morning, dine in London Monday night. Or lunch a little early in London Saturday morning, and dine in New York (a little late, perhaps) Thursday night. Within a week the marvelous sister ships the Mauretania and the Lusitania have made these things possible. The Mauretania sailed east, leaving New York on Wednesday morning at ten o'clock, and dropped anchor at Fishguard,

FIVE AND A HALF DAYS
TO LONDON

on the west coast of Wales, at 1:15 P.M. on Monday. The official time of her trip between the starting line off Sandy Hook and the finish line off Daunt's Rock, Queenstown, was 4 days 14 hours and 27 minutes, nearly three hours better than the best previous time. The Mauretania was the first vessel to make the stop at Fishguard, the new port of call for the Cunarders before going on to Liverpool. At Fishguard a prompt transfer of mails and passengers was made to special trains on the Great Western Railway, and the travelers reached London, after a run of 262 miles in 270 minutes, at half-past seven-five and a half days from New York to London. On Saturday, while the Mauretania was approaching the Irish coast, the Lusitania left Liverpool at 5 P.M. On Thursday night, at eight o'clock, she landed her passengers at the New York dock. Her official time was 4 days 11 hours and 42 minutes. Her passengers left London on Saturday at noon, so that their journey from London to New York occupied several hours less than five and a half days. Nearly 26 knots, or 30 statute miles, an hour is the speed which the steamers must keep up steadily to accomplish these results. This dual accomplishment of the two biggest steamships afloat is the most notable achievement of modern travel. Its importance is only increased by the fact that the rapidity of the trips is equaled by their comfort and luxurious

SHALL WE REFORM

OUR COURTS ?

"The Law's Delay " is a subject which has been discussed in these pages frequently for many months past, in special articles by well-known lawyers and judges, in letters from litigants, and in editorials. As long ago as 1906 Judge Amidon, of the United States District Court of North Dakota, in an article in The Outlook, defined the capital vice of American law to be "its instability of administration, the frequent retrial of the same controversy.' American lawyers and judges are more and more devoting themselves to a discussion of this "capital

vice" and the means by which it may be eliminated. At the annual meeting of the American Bar Association, held at Detroit, Michigan, last month, a special committee, which has been at work on the problem for two years, made a report to the Association, which was adopted with but one dissenting vote. A member of the committee, in bringing this report to our attention, makes the very pertinent comment: This is progress.' The concrete fruit

of this committee's work is found in a bill which it has drawn, and of which the committee says: Communications received from members of Congress lead us to think that it will receive favorable consideration at the next session, and we recommend that it be again presented at that session, and that your committee be authorized to urge it upon the consideration of Congress.' The Bar Association has given this authorization, and every lawyer in the country who desires to see a high standard of ability, efficiency, and justice maintained in American courts ought to support it. From the layman's point of view the most important features of the bill are two: First, it provides that in the retrial of cases on appeal no judgments shall be set aside or reversed or new trial granted on mere technical errors in the lower courts. The error complained of, in order to result in a new trial or reversal, must, in the judgment of the upper courts, have produced an essential miscarriage of justice. Second, it provides that the facts in a jury case may be determined separately from the questions of law, and the facts established by a competent jury may constitute a record to be accepted by the higher court, which may exercise its own judgment as to the proper application of the law to the facts. It appears to us that if these two provisions are established by Congress for the Federal courts, they will be followed by legislation in the various States for State courts, and two of the greatest causes of "the law's delay" will be removed. In numberless instances in both State and Federal courts cases are now sent back for retrial because of minute and technical errors which have no bearing upon the real justice of the cause. This may be either because the appellate judge is a stickler for technicalities or because he hesitates

to exercise a discretion which is not specifically conferred upon him by the statute. Moreover, it happens that when causes are thus retried the entire evidence as to the facts, as well as the discussion of law points, is gone over in the new trial. It is this that makes, especially in criminal cases, procedure in the courts tedious, complicated, and expensive. The committee, besides drafting this bill, makes some further recommendations. These are: First, that the whole judicial power of each State should be vested in one great court, of which all tribunals from the municipal court up to the supreme court should be branches or divisions. At the head of this great court there should be a high official "who would be responsible for failure to utilize the judicial power of the, State effectively." Second, future codes of court procedure should be much more simple than those now in effect, and, in accordance with the general lines laid down by the statutes, the courts should be left free to fix and to change from time to time their own rules "as actual experience of their application and operation dictates." The committee points out that the present code of the State of New York, which directs the courts how they shall transact their business, and which "has been characterized aptly as 'revision gone mad,' contains some three thousand sections." Third, the higher courts of review should have the power to take additional evidence where such evidence is necessary to sustain a judgment and can be obtained without substantial controversy. This often will do away with the delay and expense of a new trial. Fourth, all clerks and court employees should be compensated by fixed salaries, and all fees collected should be paid into the public treasury. If Congress passes the bill recommended by the American Bar Association, and if the States should enact the recommendations of the Association, a great step will have been taken to promote justice to litigants, and to increase the real power and dignity of the courts. The only material objection we can see to the proposals of the Bar Association is that they may reduce the incomes of that class of lawyers who thrive upon involved and long-drawn-out litigation.

It will be conceded as a general proposition that lawyers do not reach the bench by assiduous study, high legal accomplishment, and professional training. Political organizations have much more to do with their advancement than personal merit. The spectacle of the elevation to a judgeship of a lawyer known and appreciated by the bar is a rare one. If the names of most of the candidates for judicial honors were submitted to the profession, they would be overwhelmingly repudiated. Of course a real diamond is sometimes discovered by chance, political organizations bring to the bench and undoubtedly some of those chosen by fair legal attainments, and others, originally deficient, become good judicial officers. But in the main the bench is below the average. The lawyers of New York City to-day freely talk of the judges. They specify names, they say to one another, "Keep away from that court, Avoid that judge," meaning beware of their slothfulness, ignorance, or immaturity. Whether the power of nominating judges can be taken from political organizations is a question. . . . So long, however, as the system exists there necessarily will be an inferior class of judges. The New York Sun denounces this criticism as an "abusive attack upon the judges" and " a misleading diatribe." Judge Alton B. Parker, in a letter to the Sun, hastens to explain that, although a member of the New York County Lawyers' Association, hew as not personally responsible for the criticism which has so disturbed the Sun; that he knows most of the judges of New York; that they are really very good indeed, and he likes them; and that they are good judges is "strongly evidenced by the fact that some of the New York lawyers recently gave a complimentary dinner to the Appellate Division. Although Judge Parker's letter throws little light on the question at issue, it throws considerable light on Judge Parker himself, and explains in twenty lines, as well as the fact

could be explained in an entire encyclopædia, why he was defeated as a Presidential candidate in 1904 by a popular majority against him of two and a half million votes and by an electoral majority against him of 196 votes. The truth of the matter is that the committee of the New York County Lawyers' Association is not attacking the judges personally, but the system by which they are selected. Mr. John R. Dos Passos, a prominent New York lawyer, in a subsequent letter to the Sun, assumed responsibility for the report, and says of it: "It is the system under which judges are nominated which is inveighed against and not the individuals who are upon the bench. I am on terms of friendly relationship with all of them. They are creatures of the system, and as long as it exists all men must seek judicial positions through it. . . . It will be a great disappointment if we do not have the support of the press of our State in an earnest effort to amend the rules of the courts relating to admission to the Bar, which lawyers concede are inadequate to produce, as a whole, either capable lawyers or fully equipped judges." The Outlook desires to see no unjust or passionate or inflammatory attack made upon the courts, but we are very glad of the controversy to which Judge Parker and Mr. Dos Passos, both lawyers of prominence, and the New York Sun are parties. It will aid in bringing clearly before thinking men, whether laymen or lawyers, the truth that, no matter how well organized court procedure is, the administration of justice depends primarily upon the character of the judges, and the judges on the character of the lawyers from whose ranks they are recruited.

of the demands of decency and of efficient government, by the Tammany Board of Aldermen. Those who were responsible for bringing the charges against him are contesting his election in the courts. Among the charges against President Haffen which Governor Hughes deemed to have been established were these: waste of public funds by the loading of pay-rolls, political jobbery in the purchase of granite for the Borough courthouse, the continuance in office as public architect of a politician without professional qualifications, and the acquisition for the city, at a cost of $247,000, for use as a bathing beach, of shore property on which the assessed valuation was $4,300 and which was situated at the mouth of a great sewer. Mr. Haffen has been Borough President ever since the first election in the newly created Greater New York, in 1898, and has been a strong political power in the Bronx for many years. It is not likely that he will be re-elected, as President Ahearn was. The removal of two Borough Presidents on such serious charges ought to provide the anti-Tammany forces with excellent fighting material in the coming campaign. The prospects for a strong fusion movement against Tammany are brightening. Last week the Republican city and county committees put themselves on record as prepared to co-operate with "all bodies opposed to Tammany Hall to the end that "candidates should be presented whose election will secure for the city all the advantages of honest, businesslike, and progressive municipal government." If the anti-Tammany bodies can present to the voters a united leadership, a strong candidate, and a rallying cry to arouse the popular interest, there should be a good prospect of a reform victory. The forces making for bad government in the city are not so strong as those making for good-when they are aroused and united. But Tammany is always awake, always a unit. Its opponents must get together and work hard.

merely a product of diplomatic palaver has been increasingly evident, and the fact throws a humorous light on the fierce warcries of some irascible and ill-informed people in both countries a year or so ago. The first incident was the arrival at Seattle of a band of forty-six Japanese bankers, merchants, editors, educators, and Members of Parliament. They come from the most important Japanese cities, and are in every way representative people. Their mission has been formally announced as being to strengthen the bonds of friendship and commerce between the two countries. They were welcomed by American business men. In the address of Governor Hay, of Washington, he pointed out that the United States is now the principal purchaser of Japanese wares, and ranks second only to Great Britain in the value of exports to that country. Another speaker aptly welcomed the Japanese "not only as ambassadors of a great commerce, but also as the ambassadors of peace, good. will, and good neighborhood." The second incident-not one of grave importance, but a charming illustration of the delicacy and tact of Japanese courtesy— was the message from the Emperor of Japan congratulating the City of New York on the approaching anniversary of the discovery of the Hudson River, and offering to the city as a memorial present from Japan three hundred Japanese cherry trees, to be planted along Riverside Drive, on the Hudson, by Japanese gardeners to be sent here for the purpose. Japanese cherry trees are famous the world over as among the most beautiful of small, flowering, hardy trees, and they will be a pleasing feature of the city's park system and, still more, an agreeable reminder of a friendly nation.

Komura, Admiral Uriu, and others who were educated in America, we may safely say that this was a conference of future leaders of the Chinese Empire. Not only did it represent almost all the larger colleges and universities of our Eastern States, but every maritime province of China was represented, and a number of the interior provinces as well, while practically every student expects to return to China to have a part in the reshaping of that Empire. The language of the Conference was English, for, owing to the multiplicity of Chinese dialects, English was the only language that could be generally understood. To many of the Americans present it was a distinct surprise to hear, not only the freedom with which the English language was spoken, but also the clear and forceful English style which characterized the addresses. Among the outside speakers were Dr. W. W. Yen, Secretary of the Chinese Legation at Washington, Professor Jeremiah W. Jenks, of Cornell, and Dr. F. L. Hawks Pott, President of St. John's College at Shanghai. By all the speakers China's problems and their possible solution were discussed in a spirit of fairness and frankness. The keynote of the Conference was patriotism-the patriotism not of boastfulness but of service. Whether in oratorical contest, in debate, or in conversation, China's future was the one subject thought of. The subject that won the prize in the English oratorical contest was "A Plea for True Patriotism," while another speaker in the contest voiced the spirit of the Conference when he spoke on "The Spirit of True Service." It is significant that the twelve young women present had an influence much greater than their numbers would imply. Not only was the social success of the Conference in large part due to their presence, not only was the music chiefly in their hands, but in speaking also they showed their ability, for in each of the two oratorical contests second place was won by a young woman—the winner of second place in the Chinese oratorical contest being a niece of the late Viceroy Li-Hung-Chang. Li-Hung-Chang. The first conference of Christian Chinese students in the United States followed immediately after the main Conference. The programme of the