in the scientific world. Fitted by nature for research, it can only be imagined how the grind of teaching a lot of rather uninterested and unintelligent boys of twenty must have weighed upon him. But he never showed the slightest impatience. He was courtesy personified, although the rapidity with which his mind worked and the stupidity with which ours functioned often produced an atmosphere of surprise and perplexity in the lecture-room. But I will say this for our credit: We never held it against him that the celerity of his demonstrations on the blackboard frequently left us in hopeless bewilderment.

The limpid honesty of his mind was so natural and unsophisticated that it never occurred to him that intellectual dishonesty is one of the besetting sins of college undergraduates. By this I mean. that the average undergraduate is instinctively willing to bluff his way through a recitation or an examination when he can. So it came about that this young professor was one of the first to introduce what is now known as the honor system in American college life.

T

He did not do it formally, but spontaneously.

It happened in this way. At one important examination-I think a semiannual examination in his course-after distributing the questions on which we were to write he said: "Gentlemen, I regret that an important engagement compels me to leave you. As you finish your papers lay them on my desk, and I will collect them when I return this evening." As he left the room we looked at one another in amazement, but not a man violated his confidence. One man in particular, a cripple, whose mind was as brilliant as his record as a student was bad, got up, pulled his coat sleeves over his cuffs, which were covered with adventitious aids in the shape of formulæ and definitions, went to the desk, laid down his blank sheet, and limped out of the room, exclaiming, "Hell, he's too much for me!" He was conditioned, of course. But he had the satisfaction, of which perhaps he was not consciously aware, of gloriously passing a test of honor, although he ignominiously failed in a test of a knowledge of physics.

The professor of whom I am speaking died at Amherst, Massachusetts, when only thirty-five years old, in 1879. Some of his students were still talking about him at Amherst in this year of our Lord, 1926-not of his brilliance, not of his knowledge, not of the facts and theories which he taught, but of his personality. His name was Elihu Root, and he was, I believe, a distant cousin of that other Elihu Root who is to-day the foremost living publicist of America.

What the small college can do in the way of producing men of wide influence on American life is illustrated in the careers of these two Elihu Roots, one a product of Amherst, the other of Hamilton. The great universities perform a noble service in the advancement of learning. They deserve all the support which they are receiving from the munificence of American wealth. But the small college, while it cannot create great equipments in buildings, great research laboratories, and great organizations of technicians, can and does produce great teachers who ought not to be forgotten in the annals of American education.

HIS morning I saw Giolitti again. Though in the eighties, this statesman, repeatedly Premier, is still hale and hearty. Physically and mentally he towers above the average Italian.

A year and a half ago an Outlook correspondent in Rome, whose name I do

The Outlook's Editor in Europe

intimidation. Fascism, as it had been Fascism, as it had been practiced, then suffered some slump. But the conclusion that it could not last long would seem hardly to have considered its inherent force; certainly it did not appear to anticipate some events of the subsequent months.

resignation and the King's summons to Giolitti to form a Cabinet. Neither event has yet occurred.

The correspondent asserted that Fascism had "lost its hold on the country" and had become "profoundly unpopular. It cannot last long; and though its fall will be postponed for a few months, . . . that fall is certain."

Eighteen months have passed, and Fascism has not fallen. On the contrary, it seems more popular than when the correspondent registered his fore

cast.

He wrote, it is true, at a time following the dreadful Matteotti murder, a time of just resentment by every rightthinking man concerning the excesses of

of all facts during the past four years is Mussolini's increasing hold on the Italian people. Despite Fascism's faults, graphically portrayed by The Outlook's correspondent, the Italians as a whole, "of all classes from the intellectuals down to the poorest of the poor"-opposition to intimidation to the contraryrecognized two things. First, materially at least, they were better off than before; second, one man had wrought this.

They had seen their lands and homes invaded by extremists, their factories occupied and controlled by inefficient day laborers, their railway trains held up by Bolshevists, their Parliament become the plaything of politicians, and their

soldiers insulted in the streets, even officers' chevrons being ripped off. Of course there was impatience under such misrule, for in Italy, as elsewhere, the state's first duty is to assure protection to life, liberty, and property.

The people were discouraged. Mere liberty had not brought with it necessary capacity for properly using liberty. Legislative rule by representative government had fallen down. What was the alternative? To surrender the cherished and traditional right of choosing a representative government and accept a dictatorship instead.

Well, why not? A man of rough-andready methods was at hand, a kind of Cromwell. For, despite all drawbacks, Benito Mussolini had shown astounding genius for organization. He said, "Here's my chance." And he took it.

He had been very extreme Socialist. But, as he has explained:

The Socialism of twenty-five years ago was very different from that of to-day. I was a Socialist, but within the party I never ceased to combat

the parliamentary errors of its chiefs, the bureaucracy, the alliance with Freemasonry [different in Italy from that in America]. I did all possible to bring back the party to primeval purity. But in 1913 I realized that it was in vain. That was one of the reasons why I broke with the Socialist Party.

The other, the urgent reason, was the question of intervention in the Great War. The party chiefs, being pacifists, could not realize the imperious necessity of war. . . . That is why, in the autumn of 1914, I quitted the Socialist Party, for which I had endured poverty and exile.

He swung clear. He entered the war. He was wounded. He recoiled from Socialist disdain for the army. He could espouse some extreme methods, but not that. He longed for discipline to awaken the nation's patriotism. So he founded a new movement and for its symbol took the old Roman fasces to express confidence in the state's power and force. The movement grew apace. It triumphantly defied Bolshevism. It finally downed the old parliamentary régime itself.

expense; even if his Fascist militia now cost 28,000,000 lire a year (about a million dollars), its five branches, especially the railway branch, have been worth the expense. The Budget deficit grew less. There was juster taxation. There was less bribery. Finally, the Dictator-the Duce, or leader, as his fol

mony with Italy's capacity to pay. Coincidentally the Government Budget, recording the highest surplus reached since the formation of the Italian Kingdom, revealed Italy's real position, not only in state finance but in all its economic components.

Italians, especially the youth, with a passionate spirit of nationalism, love of country, sacrifice. The people were no longer the Italians of a decade previous. With all this vividly in the popular mind, Mussolini overcame a passing unpopularity and did not fall "in a few months," as had been predicted.

Then came the emphasis of success striven for against great odds. Intimidation, whether from Fascists or Socialists, grew less, and the people in general could actually go about their daily tasks in peace. Strikes also became fewer. Not many persons were out of work. Home capital was more confident. And now, in consequence, Italy began to enjoy increasing prestige abroad. Foreign capital was naturally attracted by labor cheaper than elsewhere and showing marked willingness to work, as well as by Italy's huge potentiality in water power. This economic eminence was finally crowned by the administration's financial success in its agreements with the American and British Governments, canceling most of the war debt to them and providing for reasonable remittances in har

the majority of Italians to Fascism's most interesting experiment; in Mussolini's words at the time, "the most hazardous, audacious, and therefore the most revolutionary reform introduced by the Fascist Government in its forty months of power." It completely abolished previous labor legislation, buried the Socialist unions, and established compulsory adjudication in all disputes. The Duce proclaimed: "The old Marxist doctrine of class warfare must be replaced by a lotta di capacita" (a warfare of efficiency).

The new law allows the formation in each district of unions, whether of laborers or of employers. Collective contracts are to be acknowledged and enforced by the state. Lockouts and strikes are forbidden. A special magistracy and court, with jurisdiction to settle all disputes, are constituted. Ultimate recourse, however, may be had to the Court of Appeal; its decision is final. Commenting on the new law, Mussolini remarked:

In its conception of capitalism, Fas

cism is in direct contrast with Socialism. According to Socialist theories, capital belongs to every one and the "capitalist" is a vampire. According to our doctrine, capitalism, with its advantages and disadvantages, has had behind it centuries of experience, and where attempts have been made to abolish it it has always returned. The Socialist conception, identifying capitalism with certain individuals and asserting that they delight to exploit

"P

ROHIBITION can be enforced," says District Attorney Alberti Baker, of Schoharie County,

New York.

In evidence he offers his own county once sopping wet, but now, according to Mr. Baker, bone dry. All this in the heart of a State notoriously wet, a State which has repealed its own enforcement act and passed the responsibility on to the Federal Government.

You probably wonder how this country district attorney, who works practically single-handed, accomplished this result. Hard work and the will to succeed, almost every one admits, were the causes of Mr. Baker's success. There seems to be no reason why other district attorneys, if they so wish, cannot follow his example.

Mr. Baker took office in 1924. He found Schoharie County pretty wide open as far as drinking was concerned. There had been little effort to enforce the Volstead Act. He found that the whole burden of "drying up" the 642 square miles of his district was placed directly upon his shoulders. He could expect little support from the sheriff, whom he considers a wet. The towns of his county are off the main railroad and motor lines and the Federal prohibition agents in Albany only enter Schoharie County when summoned. The MullanGage State Enforcement Law had been repealed and the repeal approved by Governor Smith, known to be a wet sympathizer. Other district attorneys and police chiefs of the State were doing little or nothing toward the enforcement of the Volstead Act. It was considered to be the business of the Federal Government. Mr. Baker's county had been one of the largest hop-growing counties of the State. Many farmers were growing

wealthy by producing this important beer ingredient. They have been put out of business as far as the hop industry is concerned, and it will be readily understood that in his attempt to enforce the Volstead Act Mr. Baker had to face many antagonisms which would not be found elsewhere.

But District Attorney Baker won his office by a promise to the women voters that he would correct the laxity in the enforcement of the law. He promised them that he would make prohibition a fact in Schoharie County. For the first few months he made little headway; but then, by adopting legal measures which had not previously been used, he struck terror into the hearts of all bootleggers, saloon-keepers, and the owners of property which might be involved through their tenants' selling of liquor.

Mr. Baker claims to be the first county prosecutor to make use of Section 22 of Title 2 of the National Prohibition Law, which permits such an officer to bring actions in equity in the State Subring actions in equity in the State Supreme Court to close buildings and other places where intoxicating liquors are possessed or sold. This section (the significant words of which I italicize) reads as follows:

An action to enjoin any nuisance defined in this title may be brought in the name of the United States by the Attorney-General of the United States or by any United States attorney or any prosecuting attorney of any State or any subdivision thereof or by the commissioner or his deputies or assistants. Such action shall be brought and tried as an action in equity and may be brought in any court having jurisdiction to hear and determine equity cases. If it is made to appear by affidavits or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the court, or judge in

vacation, that such nuisance exists, a temporary writ of injunction shall forthwith issue restraining the defendant from conducting or permitting the continuance of such nuisance until the conclusion of the trial.

Finding the Federal Court crowded with many cases, District Attorney. Baker concluded that he could accomplish little through that channel. So he himself brought action in the name of the United States in the State Supreme Court, and, inasmuch as under the law these cases are not triable by jury, justice moved rapidly. The Hon. Charles E. Nichols, of Cobleskill, Schoharie County, New York, was the first justice of a Supreme Court to grant an injunction and judgment in such an action in New York State.

Because District Attorney Baker brought his actions in the State Court, which was nearer and more accessible and held more frequent terms, and because Judge Nichols co-operated by holding court even during his vacation periods, it was possible to close and padlock every building in Schoharie County known to be selling liquor. The judgments provided that there should be posted on conspicuous parts of the closed buildings notices containing the following words:

CLOSED BY ORDER OF CHARLES E. NICHOLS, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT. Bootleggers care little for the nominal fines usually imposed upon them when convicted. Jail sentences may prevent their activities for a season, but such sentences are usually short, except in the cases of extreme violations. But in the case of padlocking the buildings a different situation arises. The property of the owner or tenant is rendered useless for a

time. The occupant is automatically out of business and finds it a hard task to find any other property-owner who will risk his property by such a rental. The Court has found that even if the property-owner knows nothing of the violation of the law upon his property (he may even be in Shanghai) his building may be padlocked nevertheless.

Two of District Attorney Baker's cases were litigated on appeal in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and the Court upheld the validity and propriety of the procedure under Section 22, referred to.

Mr. Baker is now trying out another method of prosecuting liquor-sellers. He has indicted two bootleggers as public nuisances under Section 1530 of the State Penal Law. The legality of these actions will soon be passed upon by the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court as the result of a ruling just made by Judge Horace W. Fitch, who overruled a demurrer raised against such an indictment.

As a result of this form of law enforcement Schoharie County appears to be truly dry. In my travels about the county I did find minor violations of the law, but I believe that the aridity of the county is as great as the most optimistic prohibitionist could hope for. I believe that the Volstead Law is about as well enforced in this county as the laws against assault, larceny, or murder.

For this credit is due District Attorney Baker. He has worked hard and long. He has gone out upon many an investigation himself. He has impressed the would-be violators of the law with the fact that he cannot be trifled with, and with the additional fact that if they persist in their violations they will be brought to speedy and effective justice.

Hotel barrooms which were famous for their rowdyism have been, through Mr. Baker's efforts, turned into soda fountains and not the type of soda fountain either which sells booze as a side-line.

The cashier of the Schoharie 'bank, Robert A. Dewey, pointed out a store which, he said, used to be a vile and notorious saloon-not only during the days when the law licensed it, but even on Sundays and long after the Volstead Act was passed. Mr. Dewey said that it was not unusual to see fifty drunks in front of the old saloon. They would sit there, he said, shout at the passers-by, spit out from the porch, and conduct themselves in a way that even the high school principal-not to say anything about the ladies-had to cross the street in order to get by this place. "During those days we were very much over

hoteled," Mr. Dewey said. "We had many hotels that we did not need, and not a single good one. This was because men set up in the hotel business simply to sell booze. These men were getting rich from the degeneracy of the town's inhabitants. I know this for a fact because I saw the huge daily deposits come in this bank. Now it is entirely different. Former saloon customers are now

District Attorney Alberti Baker

depositing their money to their own accounts and are becoming well-to-do. The old soaks are now good citizens."

Another notorious liquor den of a short time ago is now an enterprising electrical store. These are only a few instances of the result of District Attorney Baker's padlock proceedings. Many of the saloon operators, when they sensed the energy and effectiveness of Mr. Baker's campaign, closed up shop voluntarily and left the county for more favorable regions.

Although credit is given to Mr. Baker for his effective work, the solid citizens of the county-who are drys themselves

feel that their District Attorney has become fanatical and that he is now interesting himself in persecution as well as prosecution. With the absence of large bootlegging operations to investigate or to prosecute, it is said that Mr. Baker busies himself with unfounded rumors concerning the sipping of liquor at private dances by some of the finest young women of the county; also that he is entering homes and destroying hard cider and home-made wines, which some few folk still make for their own family use. Of course one would expect to have such

an energetic prosecutor denounced by people who like their liquor themselves; but when the respectable drys also put forth criticisms they must be taken seriously. It is also true that Schoharie County voted for local option before the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment. But the county did not become dry in fact until a year ago.

I went about the county of Schoharie making an investigation of my own. It is a truly rural section. The largest town is Cobleskill, which has about 2,500 inhabitants. The other townsMiddleburg, Schoharie, and others-are of about 1,000 inhabitants each. I found it to be a fact that drunkenness is almost a thing of the past. It is a very rare occasion for any one to see an intoxicated person, and then, no matter who that person may be, Mr. Baker sees to his arrest on the charge of disorderly conduct.

In Middleburg the editor of the local paper told me that when he and his wife moved to the village two years ago his wife remarked that she had never seen such a town for drunkenness. She was afraid to go on the streets unaccompanied. Now neither he nor his wife ever sees a drunken person.

I did find several places where one could get a drink of hard cider, and some of the young people told me of a drugstore in one of the villages where they could obtain gin. However, it is only to be expected that one could find some violations of the law that the District Attorney does not know about. Viewed as a whole, Schoharie County is the desert spot of New York State.

In Mr. Baker's padlock proceedings in the State court he has been able to get a ruling allowing costs to the plaintiff. Mr. Baker's plan has been to turn over these costs to the county treasury. He now believes, however, that he can get the Court to hold that the costs to which the plaintiff is entitled belong to the district attorney who brings the action. This, he contends, will give a money incentive to district attorneys of all counties to prosecute prohibition cases. The prosecutor of Steuben County, New York, has already followed the lead of Mr. Baker.

"Of course," says Mr. Baker, "attorneys must devote time and effort to the prosecution of such cases, but the main thing to remember is that bootleggers and rum-sellers must be handled with a drastic hand. They must be made to understand that the prosecution is in earnest, and that no favors are to be shown. Then these attorneys will find that their districts will dry up quickly."

T

HE Romance of the Wires is no older than some men living in the world to-day. Its public beginning was on May 24, 1844, when Washington asked Baltimore electrically that historic question to which the answer has not yet been fully given, "What hath God wrought?". Its end is not in sight, despite the advent of the rival Romance of Wireless.

The telegraph, telephone, and power conductors of the Nation form a system of highways and byways about fifteenfold as vast in mileage as that comprising the roads, streets, and railways. The total length in the one case is in excess of fifty-three million miles; in the other, upward of three and a half million. The telephone is responsible for all but about three million miles of the enormous network of wireways. Our electric wires contain more than a billion pounds of copper, besides a fair percentage of other metals. So much for mere magnitude.

When the first submarine cable was laid between Dover and Calais, as recently as 1851, the public regarded the enterprise as a mad freak or an infamous

swindle. So unfamiliar was the process of telegraphy that people generally supposed it consisted of pulling a wire, after the manner of the old-fashioned house

From American Tel. & Tel. Co.

1,200-pair underground telephone cable "fanned out

bell. The critics gravely pointed out that the bottom of the Channel was too

rough for such a process. This episode is worth recalling, because it illustrates how strange, novel, and nonsensical, from the point of view of practical humanity only one human lifetime ago, was the idea of transmitting energy and intelligence by means of an inert rod of metal. No messenger from Mars could nowadays propound a notion that would seem more fantastic from our present standpoint.

The romances of science and invention deserve a far bigger place in the history books than has hitherto been granted to them. Whatever criteria in the selection of material may have seemed valid to the historians of a generation ago, it is inconceivable that any one with a broad outlook on human affairs who writes history to-day should regard the Trojan War as a more important event-or one of greater romantic interest-than the invention of the electric telegraph, for example.

It has long been the practice of pedagogues to make schoolboys familiar with