U-boats have wrought, both of neutral and belligerent ships, has been encouraged by the United States District Court decision in the case of the Appam." This was the case in which the court decided that a German prize crew could not bring a prize to our ports. The alternative, of course, for a German submarine is "the release of the prize or its destruction."

Many more papers, however, bring the responsibility straight home to the executive department of the Government. The New York "Herald," for instance, asserts:

The impertinence of Prussianism in sending one of its engines of "frightfulness "into a port of the United States . . . and going immediately from that port to its mission of warfare in American waters, . . . what else are these but the legitimate proofs of the [American Government's] policy of "blowing hot" at the wrong time and "blowing cold " when events demanded action that has marked the handling of our relations with Berlin from the day that Count von Bernstorff revealed his guilty foreknowledge of the dreadful crime which was to be perpetrated against American citizens and against America in the ruthless sinking of the Lusitania?

Republican papers are unanimous, not only in condemning President Wilson's policy and in resolving to supplant his Administration by one under Mr. Hughes; they are also unanimous in discerning that the lesson for America is the creation of an adequate navy. For instance, the New York "Tribune says:

The new transatlantic U-boat campaign gives plain notice that the theory of American inaccessibility to European attack has been completely exploded. Our coast and our coastwise commerce will be an easy mark in war time to European raiders unless we create a navy with sufficient resources to patrol and defend our own waters.

And the Chicago "Tribune:"

We have witnessed another striking demonstration of the contraction of the world through the inventive genius of men and received an ominous reminder of the folly of our pacifist

theorists who tell us the oceans are our defense. On the contrary, they are the open roadway of armed aggression.

The Buffalo "News" concludes thus:

Germany has brought the war to our own dooryard. . . . She has, with a remarkable exhibition of seamanship, shown her contempt for the United States and thumbed her nose at a Government that has shown neither red blood nor backbone.

THE WILSON PAPERS An able apologist for the Wilson Administration is the Brooklyn" Citizen." It aptly

asserts:

If it is conceded that the raider is within his international rights in sinking British ships, it does not follow that he has an equal right or any right to sink neutral vessels.

Again :

It is a separate question whether he can be permitted to carry on his operations in a form that amounts to a full blockade of our ports, this being involved in the holding up of ships under the American flag, and that, too, in their passage from one American port to another.

On the other hand, "to call these submarine operations a blockade of American ports is silly," replies another Democratic paper, the New York "World," and continues:

German war-ships have the same right as British war-ships in the western Atlantic, and since the beginning of the war British cruisers have hovered off Sandy Hook to prevent the German merchant ships in New York harbor from making a dash to the sea. Had these merchant ships put to sea, it would have been lawful for the British cruisers to sink them as soon as they passed the three-mile limit, and the same rights adhere to German submarines operating in these waters against British commerce. There is one law for both of them.

Still another New York City Wilson supporter, the "Times," places in close juxtaposition these two sentences which reveal a faith based evidently on something else than experience:

The murder of the hundred Americans who went down with the Lusitania has never been atoned for. . . . The people know that they can trust President Wilson to safeguard the rights and the interests of the country prudently and wisely but firmly.

In the same spirit the Springfield "Republican" voices confidence in the President, and concludes that "this foray of the German U-boat off our coast is a sporadic yet daringly conceived and brilliantly conducted exploit which matches well several other adventurous deeds in the war which have brought fame to the German navy."

THE GERMAN-AMERICAN PRESS

Among the prominent German-American papers in the United States are the "New Yorker Staats-Zeitung" and The New Yorker Herold." The first asserts that the Times," "Herald," and other Germanophobe papers are merely mouthpieces of the

66

1916

We have not heard from any one that the Germans in their U-boat campaign on the American coast conducted themselves other than in strict compliance with international law. . . Even such a bitter opponent of Germany as Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, of Harvard, admits that" the Germans were strictly within their rights." But munitions have grown to be so much a part of America as to make Americans affected in their life nerves should their source of supply stop earlier than does the war which has created that supply.... No law is broken. Every promise is scrupulously kept. But his Majesty, Munition, is wounded-that's all.

THE FOREIGN PRESS Chief among German papers in point of influence stands the "Berliner Tageblatt," and an article by Captain Persius, perhaps the leading naval critic in Germany, is worth quoting in this connection. According to a broad hint in that article, German submarines are now hunting in pairs. Captain Persius indicates that, despite adherence to the request of the American Government to a restriction of submarine warfare, the continued activities of German undersea craft and the large number of Allied merchant vessels sunk by them show an increase in the U-boat supply. The writer says:

Of late, as our Government has obligated itself first of all to observe the regular rules of international custom existing before the war also in the conduct of the submarine trade war, the question arose as to how it would be possible for our submarine commanders to carry on

373

a successful trade war, on the one hand, and not to overstep the boundaries laid down by the rules for cruiser warfare, on the other. That both of these demands may be inet by the exercise of great skill has already been demonstrated. . during the last few months. . . . We may feel certain that, despite the bonds laid upon our submarines, their effectiveness will continue to increase in the future as it has done in the past.

In France a corresponding position to that of the "Berliner Tageblatt" in Germany is occupied by the Paris " Temps." Its comment on the Nantucket affair is interesting because of two things. The first is its suspicion that, "if it is true that the U-53 left Newport without taking on a supply of oil, the question may be asked immediately, Where did the submarine get or where will it get the combustible to return to Germany?" The second suggestion is that "Germany may be seeking through the Nantucket affair to give satisfaction to the Pan-Germanists, who were demanding a ruthless submarine war and new instances of intimidation.'

In England newspapers also assume this. conclusion; for instance, the London "Morning Post" thinks the German raid “devised for the purpose of inflicting a gratifying loss on shipping generally, and also to serve the political purpose of cheering and enlivening the German public."

Finally, the English papers do not fail to point out the gallant action of our navy. For instance, the London "Daily Mail:"

If wholesale murder was not permitted almost within range of American guns, it was owing to the action of the United States destroyers, which saved hundreds of lives. That the American seamen showed the greatest energy and efficiency in aiding passengers and crews will not surprise the people of this country who know the United States navy as a great service with splendid traditions.

Choshu clan, which produced Prince Yamagata, the late Prince Ito, and many others of

note.

In 1871 young Terauchi entered the army and quickly rose through the various grades. In the civil war of 1878 he was wounded in the right arm and its free use was permanently lost. For some years he was attaché to the Legation at Paris, and on his return was made adjutant and private secretary to the War Minister. He became in succession Director of the Military Academy, Chief of . Staff of the First Army Division, Director of the First Bureau of the General Staff Office, Commander of the Third Army Brigade, Superintendent of Military Education, ViceChief of the General Staff, and War Minister in the Katsura Cabinet of 1902, holding that post throughout the war with Russia, and giving evidence of high organizing power. It was natural, therefore, that when Korea was annexed he should be chosen as one well qualified to handle the difficult situation there, without gloves if necessary, and always with administrative power.

The record of his work as Governor-General includes the spread of agricultural knowledge, the reforesting of the hills, the encouragement of manufacture, the opening of mines, the making of roads, the extension of railways, the improvement of harbors, and the erection of schools. Though he is Japan's dominating military figure, he values more highly, so we are told, these betterings of conditions in Korea than anything he has won as a soldier. Indeed, this would be borne out by an interview which he gave on October 10 to the Associated Press; in it he said: "Because I am a successful soldier, shall that prevent my being a prudent minister of state? Say it, repeat it, that I come as a statesman who is seeking the lasting interests of my people, not as a militarist seeking glorification by the sword."

The differences between General Terauchi and Marquis Okuma are two. First, Count Terauchi has been regarded as a representative of old Japan, as a Samurai of the old exacting martinet order, one who represents personal government, the kind of high-minded but restricted government which the Elder Statesmen like Prince Yamagata, for example, would exercise. On the other hand, the retiring Premier represents new Japan, popular government, party government, and is the natural head of those Japanese-and they are increasing in number-who believe that

no Prime Minister ought to rule without a majority in the Diet. Prince Katsura, when Premier, thought that he could rule without a majority behind him, and said so, but some weeks later his Ministry had to fall just because the legislative body did not support him. In the House of Peers, the upper house of the Japanese Parliament, Count Terauchi will be measurably certain of support; as to the lower house, there will probably be greater opposition.

This opposition will doubtless come, not only because he does not represent popular government, but also because he is supposed to emphasize the importance of a vigorous foreign policy. It has been expected that the new Premier's first thought will concern itself with the building up of Japan as a Power among nations, as contrasted with the first thought of the retiring Premier, which was judged to have been centered on the development of Japan's domestic resources and the improvement of Japanese internal conditions.

Popular supposition as to a forward" foreign policy has been accentuated, first by the recall of Baron Motono, Japanese Ambassador to Russia, to become the new Foreign Minister, thus suggesting a more thorough understanding between Russia and Japan than was emphasized by the RussoJapanese Treaty, ratified last summer. Secondly, the rumor that Baron Sakatani, formerly Minister of Finance and now in this country, would become a member of the Cabinet, also indicates a "forward" policy,' for we recall his statement, in an interview the other day, that "justice and necessity will require that the status of Japanese in the United States be settled at the close of the European war."

66

Concerning this the Japanese Embassy at Washington informs The Outlook that, as to Japanese immigration into this country, Japan has for the present nothing whatever to negotiate about it, for what is generally known as the 'gentlemen's agreement" is being observed to the satisfaction of the two countries, that any objectionable section in the proposed Immigration Bill before Congress has been deleted, and that the California Land Law controversy may be said to be in abeyance; but it disclaims any knowledge as to whether or not Japan will renew her protests in this matter at the end of the European war.

While it has been the fashion for some Japanese and many American papers to

speak of General, Terauchi as a jingoist, there is no record, so far as we know, which would indicate that he is a jingoist toward America. He was first brought into close. contact some years ago with Americans at the time when 123 Koreans were accused of complicity in a plot to take his life. As American missionary interests are particularly in evidence in Korea and as nearly all the accused were Christians, it was feared that there might be both an anti-American and an anti-Christian spirit shown in the trial. Though the trial was conducted in a way to elicit sharp criticism, those who were well informed were confident that there would be no attempt in Korea to persecute Christians in general or Americans in particular. This conviction was justified. The prisoners were ultimately all liberated except six, and the Emperor, by an act of Imperial clemency, freed the remainder. It is interesting to note that in the interview above mentioned (that of October 10) the Premier declares that he will undertake no new steps in regard to socalled American problems, including immigration, but will closely follow the policies of the outgoing Cabinet.

As to China, Count Terauchi said: " Japan's ambition is to have China benefited, like Japan, from the fruits of the world's civilization and world progress. The Japanese and Chinese people have sprung from the same stock. Our future destiny is a common destiny that is historically involved." Though he was unable to dwell on a detailed programme, the Premier continued, he could affirm that America's interests in China would be harmed in no wise by Japan, which had no

66

375

intention of violating China's sovereignty or preventing interested nations from having equal opportunities. "People talk of closing the door," he added. That is a complete non possumus. As long as Japan's vital interests and dignity are not infringed [this phrase leaves room for a great range of interpretation], Japan will take no aggressive step against any nation, especially America."

So far from being caused by Japanese foreign policy, whether regarding China or America, the change of Ministry, in the opinion of such an authority as Dr. Toyokichi Iyenaga, of the East and West News Bureau, has been caused rather by domestic politics. Dr. Iyenaga writes to The Outlook that, in his opinion, Japanese foreign policy will undergo no change by whatever Cabinet may be formed, for Japan has one definite foreign policy, namely, the maintenance both of her rights among nations and of amicable relations with all. This policy, inaugurated by the late Emperor, says Dr. Iyenaga, "has been handed down to his successor, and will be followed with success, I am sure, by the present Emperor."

The actual matter in hand for Japan was well defined by the new Premier in the interview above mentioned as follows: "The Empire faces a situation which demands strenuous and unified exertions to secure reforms of the national life, to nourish the strength of her resources, and to place the nation on an unshakable foundation of secure and lasting peace in the Far East. . . . Not revolutionary, not aggressive, not militaristic, but constructive-that is my programme," concluded the Premier.

M

University of Cincinnati that Miss McVea's work is best known. For twelve years she was associated with this municipal university, first as Assistant Professor of English, and later in the additional capacity of Dean of Women. As Professor S. Gale Lowrie, of the Department of Political Science at the University of Cincinnati (to whom we are indebted for our information concerning Miss McVea), says, to this position of Dean of Women at the University she brought rare gifts of leadership and a most charming personality, which enabled her to exert an influence and serve the University

and the community as it is the privilege of few women to do.

It has not been the policy of this institution to maintain a scholastic life apart from the world. It has tried to train for life by being a part of life, and has maintained a policy of aiding and encouraging every movement looking toward civic betterment. To this work Miss McVea devoted her unusual energy. She found time not only for her university work, exacting as it was in her double rôle of teacher of English and Dean of Women, but also responded generously to the incessant demands for extra-mural lectures and talks. She was in every sense a citizen of the community. Just prior to her departure from Cincinnati the organizations to which Miss McVea had belonged during her twelve years' sojourn in the city planned a unique testimonial to her services and fellowship. Twenty-seven organizations with which she had been intimately associated joined in an expression of appreciation of what her life among them had meant. Few women have called forth the tributes accorded that evening to the new President of Sweet Briar College.

One's work is guided by one's philosophy. Miss McVea's work for the women students of the University of Cincinnati was directed by her conception of the position these women would be later called upon to fill. She believes this to be a man's and a woman's world, and that woman must have a share in its work. To this end she sought to make it possible for the young women of Cincinnati, not only to avail themselves of the cultural educational courses already offered them at the University, but also to have further fields open to them, that they might enter new vocations.

To fit the University, which is maintained at city expense, to render this service a new Woman's Building was imperative. Rest and recreation rooms for all women students were urgently needea, as well as laboratory equipment for the teaching of the household and domestic arts. It was due to the earnest and tireless efforts of Dean McVea that the City Council was prevailed upon to issue bonds for the erection of such a building. The handsome structure now nearing completion will stand as a monument to her work and ideals for the women students of the University of Cincinnati.

On Commencement day, in June, the University of Cincinnati conferred on Miss

McVea the honorary degree of Doctor of Letters, in appreciation of her work to advance and strengthen the institution of which she had so long been a part and in anticipation of what lies before her in her still larger field of usefulness.

She

Miss McVea was born in Louisiana. was educated at St. Mary's College, Raleigh, North Carolina, where she was a teacher and afterwards principal. Later she studied at Cornell and in Washington at the Columbian University.

She taught in Washington, D.C., and was Assistant Professor of English Literature at the University of Tennessee, and went to the University of Cincinnati in 1904, where she has labored most successfully until now. Her chief characteristics are breadth of scholarship, and therefore of vision, and a big-hearted interest in all human affairs. A strong woman, a scholar, a born leader, and an excellent speaker, she has exerted a tremendous influence in the life of the city as well as in the work of the University of Cincinnati.

Sweet Briar College, to which Miss McVea goes as the new President, opened its first session just ten years ago this fall. It was founded by the will of Mrs. Indiana Fletcher Williams as a non-sectarian institution. It is in Amherst County, Virginia, about fifty miles south of Washington and twelve miles north of Lynchburg, in the Piedmont section of the State. Two views of the College appear elsewhere in this issue, together with the portrait of its new President. Its Ninth Year Book, the most recent of its catalogues, records one hundred and three students in the College proper (twenty-one of whom are special students) and ninety-nine sub-freshmen—that is, students in the preparatory department. The College at Sweet Briar is regarded by educational experts as high in rank among women's colleges, and it has grown in popularity through the South. Naturally, a large proportion of its students, particularly among the sub-freshmen, come from Southern States, but considerably over one-half in the College proper are from Northern States.

Since Vassar College opened its doors, scarcely more than half a century ago, the growth of women's colleges in this country has been one of the most distinguishing factors in educational development in America. Though young in years, therefore, such a college as Sweet Briar rising in the South makes up in present opportunities what it lacks in age.