Still other films covered the flower markets of European cities, the tulip beds of Holland, etc. Finally, certain films showed the activities of special plants, the action of the sensitive plant, the insect-eating plant, and others.

In this way travel, science, nature studies, craftsmanship, art, archæology, and various industries were treated. In connection with the treatment of industries special evenings were arranged for department store employees. Those who handled linen found films to illustrate their industry; those who handled rugs found the rug and its pattern growing before their eyes on the screen; for those who handled silks there was a film beginning with the cocoon, and showing every step in the manufacture of the fabric.

All activities, including motion pictures, at the Toledo Museum of Art are free, and the direct educational influence of the films shown there is hardly estimable. Mr. Stevens informs us that "it would be difficult to say just what kind of films most interested the children, for they seem to be pleased with everything." He adds: "We occasionally introduce a cartoon motion film, but I really think they enjoy the educational films quite as well."

The cost of installing the motion picture outfit amounted to about $300, and the cost of the year's film service was about $350. Was not this a good investment?

ANTI-SALOON FIGURES

In Pennsylvania, a "wet" State, with about seven and a half million population, there are confined in asylums for the insane over fifteen thousand persons. In New York, another "wet State, with about nine million inhabitants, over thirty-one thousand persons are confined in asylums. In the nine "dry" States-Georgia, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia-with a combined population of about fourteen and a half millions, there are only 17,466 insane people.

These and other figures were recently made public by the Anti-Saloon League of Pennsylvania, which claims that the figures prove that the liquor traffic in Pennsylvania is responsible for a large percentage of insanity and poverty in that State. It is to

be noted, however, that New York and Pennsylvania have large urban populations, while the nine "dry" States probably have a much larger proportion of country dwellers.

Whether or not these figures actually prove what is claimed, other figures from the same compilation by Mr. E. H. Cherrington, editor of the "Anti-Saloon Year Book "-are fully as striking.

Mr. Cherrington has divided the States into four groups: the nine " dry" States; the near-prohibition" States, in each of which more than fifty per cent of the popu lation was under prohibition prior to 1915; the "partially licensed " States, where more than twenty-five but less than fifty per cent of the population were under prohibition; and the " license" States, where less than twenty-five per cent of the people were under prohibition. Since Mr. Cherrington's tables were compiled several States have been added to the "dry" column.

Figured on the basis of population, the number of insane people per 100,000 was as follows in the dry States, 118.9; in the near-prohibition States, 150; in the partly licensed States, 234; in the wet States, 275.3. The figures alluded to above for Pennsylvania give that State 196.4 per 100,000, while New York has 343.2 per 100,000 population.

Turning to pauperism, Mr. Cherrington finds (all his figures are based on authoritative Government reports) that the number of people in almshouses per 100,000 of population is as follows: in the dry States, 46.5; in the near-prohibition States, 54.4; in the partly licensed States, 123.1; in the wet States, 127. Pennsylvania has 125.3 paupers and New York 132 per 100,000.

The percentage of children of school age enrolled as pupils is 75.6 in the dry States, 69.1 in the near-prohibition States, 72.2 in the partly licensed States, and 68.8 in the wet States. The percentage of children between the ages of fifteen and twenty enrolled in school is as follows: in the dry States, 38.4 per cent; near-prohibition States, 35.5; partly licensed States, 32; licensed States, 26.6 per cent.

With regard to property-holding, Mr. Cherrington's report shows the number of homes owned in the various States and the percentage that are owned free and clear. In the dry States the average of free homes is 73.6; in the near-prohibition States, 71.4; in the partly licensed States, 62; in the wet States, 57.9.

Perhaps the almost exact correspondence of these various sets of figures proves' nothing. But at least it puts the burden of proof on alcohol.

POLITE INTEREST AND

SPEAKING OUT

On another page Mr. H. J. Haskell, of the Kansas City "Star," gives a clear, calm, and significant interpretation of the feeling of the Middle West regarding the German submarine warfare policy. He says that the Middle West takes a "polite interest" in it. We are sorry. The ancestors of many of the inhabitants of the Middle West did not take a polite interest" in the American Revolution. The inhabitants of the Middle West themselves took a very much more than "polite interest" in the Civil War.

The German submarine policy and the attitude of the United States toward that policy involve the very fabric of the law of nations. How non-combatants-men, women, and children-shall be treated in time of war is an issue of supreme importance to civilization, and therefore of supreme importance to the Middle West.

This supreme issue has often been presented to this country, but in no such dramatic form as that which it assumed when the Lusitania was torpedoed and scores of Americans and hundreds of other non-combatants, including women and children, were sent by a German submarine to their graves in the sea.

The Lusitania has thus become a symbol of what the Declaration of Independence calls the inalienable rights of mankind. What one thinks about the destruction of the Lusitania is a test of what one thinks about the rights of man. The friends of Mr. Hughes have hoped that he would meet this test, and his opponents have accused him of avoiding it. He has justified the hopes of his friends and answered the criticism of his opponents by speaking out boldly when this test was recently put to him. It was a dramatic incident. Mr. Hughes was speaking in Louisville, Kentucky, on the evening of October 12. A questioner in the balcony of the hall applied the test. We quote verbatim the account of the event as given by the New York Times :"

A Voice. "Justice Hughes, just a moment. Please permit a respectful interruption. What would you have done-?" (Cries of "Put him out !")

"Please permit the question to be asked," said Mr. Hughes. "I do not want any one shut off from a courteous question. Go on, sir. Please ask your questions." (Cries of "Go on, you boob !")

409

A Voice. "I ask, I trust respectfully-" (Cries of "Put him out!")

"Please let the question be asked!" shouted Mr. Hughes. "I desire this question to be asked. Please ask it."

A Voice. "I ask you, with all the respect that I know, what you would have done when the Lusitania was sunk. See if you can answer this."

"I will answer this now! Permit me to answer it! Permit me to answer it!" shouted Mr. Hughes. "Sir, I would have had the State Department at the very beginning of the Administration so equipped as to command the respect of the world; second-kindly wait until I get through and do not interrupt with applause until I have answered the gentleman's question. "I have said that I would have had the State Department equipped so as to command the respect of the world at the outset of the Administration; and, next, I would have so conducted affairs in Mexico as to show that our words meant peace and good will, the protection, at all events, of the lives and property of American citizens; and next-and next-when I said "strict accountability' every nation would have known that that was meant; and, further, when notice was published with respect to the action [the action threatened] I would have made it known in terms unequivocal and unmistakable that we should not tolerate a continuance of friendly relations through the ordinary diplomatic channels if that action were taken-and the Lusitania would never have been sunk."

Our issue with Germany to-day is almost precisely like our issue with Great Britain in 1776: Shall the inalienable right of Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be championed and protected by all the powers of our Government? Mr. Hughes sees this issue. The Middle West will see it some day if it does not see it now. When that day comes, its " polite interest will be transformed, if we know anything about the spirit of the West, into a grim and undaunted determination.

WHAT CAN I DO?

A distinguished surgeon said not long ago: "If there is an accident in the street when I am passing, I go at once and offer assistance. If I can do anything, I stay, if I cannot, I leave. If I can do anything, no amount of blood or mutilation has any effect on me. I seem not to see it if I am at work; but if I can do nothing, I cannot bear the sight of blood; it makes me ill." This is probably a not uncommon experience with sensitive people; it is certainly a significant experience.

In great peril nothing gives such poise and steadiness as having something to do which must be done on the instant. Very few men go into action for the first time without nervous trepidation; but when the order comes that sends them into the thick of the fight, danger is forgotten. To be halted or to stand at rest under a heavy fire tests the nerves of veterans; but the signal to " forward," even when it involves every chance of death, releases an immense and joyful energy. A man whose courage is known the world over said that he never had any sense of danger if he could do something.

move

If living were a purely intellectual process, the position of the onlooker who had nothing to do would be ideal. Detached from the turmoil and disturbance about him, he could study his age and his country with clear eyes and at leisure. This would be true if the eye were an organ complete in itself; if to see were simply to look. But nobody sees with his eyes alone; we see with our whole bodies, so to speak. Every use of the eye involves a mental process into which memory, judgment, experience, enter. The whole mind sees with the eyes.

Life is not an intellectual process; it is a vital process; no one can understand it who does not take part in it. Henry Ward Beecher once said that truth is not revealed to us to satisfy the intellect; it is given to us only so far as it is necessary to develop character. We know very little about the methods and ultimate designs of God in dealing with us, but we know enough to enable us to live upright, useful, and intelligent lives. The vital truths come to us as the result, not of thinking, but of living. Deeper truth is taught us by sorrow than by the reason; what we call the heart opens life to us far more deeply than does the mind. Words which assume the division of our natures into separate organs are necessary and convenient, but they are misleading if they give the impression that our natures are divisible and act through organs that are independent of one another. We are indivisible, and whatever we do involves mind and body, will, intellect, and heart. To understand life we must live; and we live, not in thought, emotion, and will only, but in action.

It is a deep instinct which makes every normal man and woman ask, "What can I do?" and that question is not left unanswered. There is always something to do if we are willing to do it and do not insist on

doing something else. Many think there is nothing for them to do because they are more eager to choose their work than to do it; as if the main thing were the kind of work a man does rather than the spirit in which he does it and the character he gets out of doing it. There is a share in life for every one; there is work for every hand. If you think there is nothing worth while for you to do, read these words of Dean Stanley:

Do something worth living for, worth dying for. Is there no want, no suffering, no sorrows, that you can relieve? Is there no act of tardy justice, no deed of cheerful kindness, no longforgotten duty that you can perform? Is there no reconciliation of some ancient quarrel, no payment of some long-outstanding debt, no courtesy, or love, or honor, to be rendered to those to whom it has long been due; no charitable, humble, kind, useful deed by which you can promote the glory of God or good will among men, or peace upon earth? If there be any such deed, in God's name, in Christ's name, go and do it.

INGRAHAM, EVANS, AND

American naval officers are more than the mere commanders of ships. They speak with the voice and the strength of the whole American Nation.

So spoke Duncan Nathaniel Ingraham when he took Martin Koszta, a Hungarian revolutionist but a naturalized American, from the deck of an Austrian frigate.

So spoke Robley D. Evans when, as commander of the Yorktown at Valparaiso, he captured the respect of the Government of Chile.

So spoke George Dewey when, after the Battle of Manila, he clashed swords with von Diederich, commander of the German fleet.

Just a few days ago an American naval vessel stood by while American men and women were lowered into small boats and the passenger ship on which they had been traveling was sent to the bottom.

That every vessel in the American navy shall be commanded by an Ingraham, an Evans, or a Dewey is perhaps too much to expect. Perhaps under the circumstances even an Ingraham, an Evans, or a Dewey might not have been able to do more than this American naval commander who was forced to watch the human cargo of the

1916

Stephano jettisoned into the Atlantic. For we do not know how closely the wireless telegraph limited the efforts of this naval officer to the salvage of human lives. Perhaps Ingraham, Evans, and Dewey were more fortunate than we have been accustomed to believe in being privileged to serve their country before the long arm of Marconi's invention had reached out over the open sea.

Yet it does not take a very vivid imagination to picture Ingraham, Evans, or Dewey laying his vessel alongside the U-53 and voicing the spirit of the American Nation in some such words as these:

"Your Government has pledged itself not to imperil American lives on the high seas. You are responsible for the safety of the passengers of the Stephano. If you choose to sink her, you will proceed to convoy her boats to shore under the guidance of my guns. If you attempt to submerge before her boats reach a safe haven, it will be my unpleasant duty to see that you never come to the surface again."

We believe that such an ultimatum would have been in full accord with international law and good morals. We believe that any naval officer who made such a threat under the circumstances attendant upon the sinking of the Stephano would have received the grateful applause of the American Nation.

DOES GOD ANSWER PRAYER?

A correspondent thinks that God does not answer prayer.

P. S., in his letter incorporated in your editorial entitled "Two Kinds of Prayer," in The Outlook of September 13, 1916, presents what you style a "problem," which seems to be: 'Why pray, when fifty-two years of experience are persuasive that no prayer is answered? Why not accept the situation and quit ?" The trouble is that P. S. is trying to reconcile twentieth-century reason and experience with the reason and experience of men of former ages. In the past, if we are to believe the Bible and other numerous records, prayer was answered by miracle. It is hard to see how its efficacy could be otherwise shown, for, as pointed out by P. S., non-miraculous occurrences are referable to and explainable by natural antecedents.

As, however, former times abounded in miracles, belief in prayer was natural and reasonable. To-day there are no miracles, unless indeed the word is used in a quibbling sense. Prayer answered by miracles may once have been part of God's plan in human affairs. But,

411 miracles having ceased, the conclusion is reasonable that the plan has been changed. G. N.

Faith in God's answer to prayers does not involve faith in miracles.

When your child is sick and you call in a doctor, you do not expect the doctor to work a miracle. You suppose that he has a better knowledge of the laws of health than you, and by employing those laws of health he can do more than you can for the recovery of your child.

The modern physician recognizes the effect of the spirit on the body. In many cases his presence in the sick-room is worth more than the drugs which he prescribes. In not a few cases he prescribes no drugs but trusts to nursing and the inspiration of hope and courage rather than to medicine. He will tell you frankly that all the doctor can do is to help nature.

In many cases this help of the spirit is all that is wanted, or even desired. I receive not less than eight or ten letters a week ask ing for counsel or comfort. My unknown friends do not expect me to work a miracle. They write to me because somehow they have come to have a faith in my sympathy and my intelligence. To doubt that my replies in many cases furnish comfort and in others illumination would be to doubt testimony that comes to me from unnumbered witnesses. Το doubt that men and women have received comfort and illumination from pastors and friends and books and pre-eminently from the Bible; that pupils have received such counsel and comfort from teachers, and children from parents, and friends from friends, would be to doubt a fact attested by a greater number of witnesses than probably any other fact in human experience. But to believe this is not to believe in miracles.

We who believe in prayer simply believe that an Invisible Spirit is able to communicate to us counsel and comfort if we open our hearts to receive the counsel and the comfort which he is ready to impart. This belief rests on an experience which is nearly as universal as prayer. And prayer is nearly as old as history and as universal as the human race. To disbelieve that men and women-Jews, Christians, and pagans-have received help from an unknown source is to disbelieve concurring human testimony coming from all lands, all races, all religions, and all times, ancient and modern.

LYMAN ABBOTT.

I

F there is anything certain in politics, it is that Governor Hiram Johnson, of California, will be elected on November 7 to the United States Senate. Yet California in the Presidential election is regarded as a doubtful State. There are some well-informed supporters of Hughes that expect the electoral vote of California to be cast for President Wilson. There are others, equally well informed, who believe that, although the vote will be close, the majority will be on the side of Mr. Hughes. No one, however, questions the election of Governor Johnson to the Senate. According to one of our correspondents, no one guesses his majority as so little as a hundred thousand."

66

Governor Johnson's opponent, the candidate for the Senatorship on the Democratic ticket, George S. Patton-not Francis J. Heney, as The Outlook erroneously stated a while ago is an educated man who formerly practiced law with success, and is now engaged in orange-growing on a large scale. In any ordinary campaign he would rank well. He is a man of wealth who lives in San Marino, near Los Angeles.

When Governor Johnson first announced his willingness to become a candidate for the Senate, it was generally supposed that Mr. Heney, a former prominent Progressive, who made his reputation by his brave fight as prosecutor of Abe Ruef in the graft case in San Francisco, would be the Democratic nominee. As a matter of fact, however, Mr. Heney did not even enter the Democratic primary, and Mr. Patton received the nomination without opposition.

Party ties rest lightly upon the people of California; but what has happened in that State is startling even to those who have followed political history there for the last few years.

Not many years ago California was known as a corporation-owned State. If anybody had prophesied at that time that in 1916 the State would send to the Senate as a Republican a man who had defied the corporations, had defied the bosses of his own party, and had been instrumental in putting through the most thoroughly constructed body of legislation of political and social reform that any State had ever adopted, he

would have been laughed out of court. That, however, is exactly what is about to happen.

For four years Governor Johnson has been classed as a Progressive. He was the nominee of the Progressive party for the VicePresidency in 1912. In no State in the Union has bitter opposition to the Progressive organization been so obvious, so outspoken, as it has been in California. Hiram Johnson has been called traitor, wrecker of his party, deserter; but he has gone on in his way. When the Progressive party began to break up in the rest of the country, it kept its hold in California. When, last June, the Progressive National Convention adjourned without making a Presidential nomination and the virtual end of the party as a National organization was reached, it seemed as if the greatest sacrifice would consist of Governor Johnson and his fellow-Progressives of California. The Republican organization seemed to be in the hands of the reactionaries there. These gentlemen of the Old Guard, of course, expected to be in the saddle. They made it known that Governor Johnson's presence was not wanted at any Republican meeting. Their self-confidence had been increased when the so-called Non-Partisan Election Bill, advocated by Governor Johnson, was defcated by popular referendum. And their self-confidence had also been increased by the defeat of the so-called United Republicans, who had endeavored to send a delegation of the followers of Governor Johnson to the National Republican Convention in the interest of a reunion of the Republicans and Progressives under Progressive leadership.

The voters registered as Progressives were not eligible to vote in the Republican primary, and it was known in advance that they would make Governor Johnson the Progressive candidate for the Senatorship. Governor Johnson, however, though a Progressive, was entered also as a candidate in the Republican primary. His opponent in that primary was Mr. Willis H. Booth, a "regular." The leaders of the "regulars" emphasized Mr. Booth's "regularity and Governor Johnson's irregularity." They disregarded the liberal element in their own party. They allowed the statement to go abroad that every