caré for the popular welfare while it has divided the major part of the inheritance among its own followers and favorites. That is why Tammany is the enemy of the people of New York. That is why Tammany has opposed, in the name of conservative business, every movement to make the government of the city of New York a people's government. It is Tammany that has blocked the efforts to supply New York with better parks and playgrounds. It is Tammany that has made slow the progress out of the old conditions, when tenement-houses produced money for the few and disease for the many.

The Fusion fight in New York is a fight not primarily on behalf of the taxpayer that his taxes may not be exorbitant, though it is in part that, nor primarily a fight to secure efficient administrators of the business of the city as a corporation, though it is that in part also; it is chiefly a fight on behalf of just such people as Peter and his family; a fight on behalf of the people who, unlike Peter, were born and bred in the city, but stay there because of the same reasons that have brought Peter into it; a fight to see that the benefits of city life which Peter is seeking for his wife, his children, and himself go to them; that the city of New York is a place in which it will be good to work, good to get an education, good to find wholesome recreation, good to enjoy the treasures of literature and of the arts, good to meet and live with people-good not for a few but for all.

That is the fight that is on whenever a municipal election approaches in almost every city of the land; that is the fight that is on between the forces of Tammany and the forces of Fusion. This is what is meant by the Fusion campaign for economy in administration that the people's money be not so wasted that the people are denied the full benefits of its use. This is what is meant by efficiency in administration: that the servants of the people be not outclassed by the servants of special interests, that no group of powerful individuals within the city should have command of greater ability and expert service than the people as a whole. This is what is meant by the attack on graft and official collusion with the criminal and the vicious that the machinery of city government be not manipulated to the advantage of the worst elements in the city and to the profit of a few corruptionists, but that it be controlled in the interest of all the people.

This is what the municipal campaign in New York City this year signifies; this is what every municipal campaign should signify -not merely a campaign against corruption and inefficiency, but a campaign on behalf of a cityful of people.

THE PRESIDENT'S MEXICAN POLICY

The Mexican question is for the American people a double question: First, What is the duty of a strong and prosperous nation like the United States to a neighbor torn by civil dissensions and without a government which has either the moral right to govern or the power to fulfill the fundamental function of government, the protection of persons and property? Second, What is its duty to Americans and other non-Mexicans in that unhappy country, where persons and property are not protected? President Wilson deals with this question in his Message in an admirable spirit. And in the main his policy as there outlined seems to The Outlook to be wisely conceived, and we hope it will be carried out.

I. For knowledge of the facts in Mexico the people are dependent on three sources of information: letters from Americans resident in Mexico; the newspaper press; official information. The first are almost certain to be colored by personal and pecuniary considerations; the second are likely to be affected by political and commercial bias and by the desire for sensation. The official information is more trustworthy than either private letters or press correspondence. When the President informs Congress, and through Congress the people of the United States and of the world, that affairs are growing worse, not better, in Mexico, and that "war and disorder, devastation and confusion, seem to threaten to become the settled future of the distracted country," we must assume that this is the truth.

II. It would be immoral for the United States to recognize this government. There are two possible grounds for such recognition: A de facto government may demand and receive recognition, because it does in fact govern; does preserve law and order and maintain peace. On this ground the world powers had no choice but to recognize the Government of Napoleon III, although it was founded on a coup d'état.

A

de jure government may ask recognition when it is clearly in the right, and recognition may be granted in order to aid it to acquire the stability necessary to protect persons and property and maintain peace. Of this an

illustration is afforded by our course in Panama. But the Huerta Government is neither de jure nor de facto. It is not de jure, for it was initiated by crime and is founded on crime. It is not de facto, for it has not the power to perform the most elemental functions of government.

III. Intervention for the purpose of performing these elemental functions, that is, protecting persons and property in Mexico, ought not to be undertaken except under the most imperious necessity.

Because intervention by one nation in the domestic affairs of another nation is never to be attempted if it can be avoided.

Because intervention might arouse against the American people the bitter and implacable hostility of practically the entire Mexican people, and the suspicion if not the enmity of the Central American and the South American Republics.

Because it would entail upon the United States a problem the extent, duration, complexity, and expense of which it is impossible to forecast.

IV. There remains the policy outlined by President Wilson, well entitled the policy of "isolation." It may be described in a sentence thus: Refuse moral support to the immoral and incompetent government of Huerta; draw a cordon around Mexico for the purpose of preventing the shipment from the United States of munitions of war to any of the factions which are now keeping the country in anarchy; keep steadily before the people of Mexico the assurances of our friendship and the offer of our good offices; and wait.

V. The advice to Americans to leave Mexico if they can has been questioned and may be questionable. But it can be defended on three grounds:

First, that, accompanied by provision for their transportation, it gives to possibly hundreds of our fellow-citizens opportunity of escape from an intolerable condition of suffering and peril.

Second, it emphasizes to the Mexican Government and to the world powers our conviction that Mexico is in a condition of anarchy, with no government able to perform the functions or worthy to assume the name.

Third, it avoids, as far as possible, the semblance of weakness by the warning that those who are responsible for the sufferings and losses of Americans unable to get away will be held to a strict accounting by the United States.

VI. In all dealings with foreign nations it is the duty of the American Nation to maintain a coherent and continuous policy. As long as the United States has been a Nation it has been its policy to defend its citizens from oppression and injustice in For this we fought

every part of the world.

That

with Great Britain the War of 1812. policy must not be abandoned now. The Outlook has no reason to apprehend that President Wilson intends to abandon it. It is also the duty of the American people to maintain a united front toward other peoples, to disregard all partisan considerations, and as far as possible to subordinate to the National judgment individual opinions upon questions of detail. In doing so they must necessarily act through the Administration in power. For this reason we are glad to see the policy of the Administration receiving the warm support of Progressives and Republicans in Congress, and we hope that it will receive such a support from the country as will convince the Huerta Government that it has no defenders on this side of the border.

THE PHILIPPINES IN

POLITICS?

By the appointment of Francis Burton Harrison to be Governor-General of the Philippines, and the consequent displacement of the present Governor-General, Cameron Forbes, President Wilson has raised in the minds of many who are jealous for the fine record which the United States has made in those islands no little grave concern.

Some of the arguments against the retention of the Philippines as a dependency by the United States have been quite ignored by the American people. These are the arguments which have appealed to purely selfish considerations. In the American people there runs a strain of idealism; and with regard to the Philippines this idealistic strain. has shown itself most conspicuously in the attitude of the American people and their Government. To those who have argued that the Philippines would bring to this country no profit, but rather a loss, that the pacification of the islands would call for the sacrifice

of men and of property with no material reward, the people of the United States have paid practically no heed.

When, however, it was argued that the task of governing a dependency was one for which by training and tradition the American Republic was unfitted, that it called not only for experience in colonial government which the Americans lacked, but also for a separation of such government from considerations of party politics, the American people were more inclined to listen. Could the President of the United States and Congress forget party politics long enough to decide questions that concerned the Filipinos purely in the Filipinos' interests?

From the beginning of the Philippine experiment The Outlook believed that they could. The history of the last fifteen years has been justifying that belief. First the Philippines were put into the charge of the army, and the army's freedom from party politics was never more clearly exhibited than in the work that the army did in the Philippine Archipelago. Under the administration of the first Civil Governor, Mr. Taft, this record of freedom from politics continued. When a successor to Mr. Taft was required because of Mr. Taft's appointment as Secretary of War, the Republican President chose a Democrat, and he chose him because this Democrat had had experience in the Philippines as a member of the Philip pine Commission. General Wright's successor was selected by the same Republican President from among the men who had had experience in the civil government of the Philippines. Mr. Ide had had even wider experience than in the Philippine Islands, for before being Vice-Governor of the Philippines, before being even a member of the Philippine Commission, he had been United States Commissioner to Samoa, and then, under the joint appointment of the Governments of England, Germany, and the United States, Chief Justice of Samoa. The fact that he was a Republican had no weight in his appointment, one way or another. Whether his successor, James F. Smith, was a Democrat or a Republican we do not believe that one out of a thousand of our readers could tell. We are under the impression that he was a Democrat; but what was of controlling consideration in his appointment was the fact that he had served in the Philippines first as an army officer, during which time he was in turn Deputy Provost-Marshal of Manila,

member of the Commission to confer with the Commission from Aguinaldo, Military Governor of the Island of Negros, and Collector of Customs for the Philippines, thus as an army officer having not only military but administrative experience in the islands; then later he served as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, and afterwards as member of the Philippine Commission and Secretary of Public Instruction. His successor is the man who has now been supplanted, Cameron Forbes, who, before he became Governor, was in turn a member of the Philippine Commission and Secretary of Commerce and Police in the Government, and then Vice-Governor.

In this history of the Governorship of the Philippine Islands the United States has been following up what may be well regarded as perhaps the best in the traditions of the colonial government of Great Britain.

Under how many political changes of administration in the British Government at London the Earl of Cromer remained undisturbed at his post in Egypt, President Wilson, who is a student of history, could probably tell at once. During the period from 1883 until 1907 the political complexion of the House of Commons and the British Government seesawed back and forth between Conservative and Liberal. But, more than that, Lord Cromer was experienced in the problems of colonial government before he was appointed. He was in turn private secretary to the Governor-General of India, Commissioner on the Egyptian Public Debt, Comptroller-General of Egypt, Financial Member of the Council of the GovernorGeneral of India. In view of the very brief experience of the United States in the government of dependencies, the similarity of the previous records of the Governors-General of the Philippines and of the great British administrator in Egypt is remarkable.

The contrast which President Wilson has now offered to the country is one which to the friends of good government both in the United States and in the Philippines is painful.

What is the record of the man whom President Wilson has selected to succeed Cameron Forbes ? In the first place, he has had not the slightest experience in the administration of dependencies, not the slightest experience with those delicate and difficult problems that arise in personal relations between a dependent people and their governing authorities. He has indeed had, so

far as we can find out, no administrative experience whatever. He has been a member of Tammany Hall ever since he has been in public life, and during his terms as a member of Congress he has been not only a strong Democratic partisan, but a faithful member of the group of Tammany Congressmen. He voted along with other Tammany men to sustain the Cannon régime and the Cannon methods. We have heard no adequate, no even plausible, explanation for his appointment-except one. Mr. Harrison is a member of the Ways and Means Committee in Congress. The Chairman of this Committee has succeeded to the former powers of the Speaker, and is an almost autocratic party leader. The present Chairman of that Committee, Mr. Underwood, may possibly go into the Senate. If the selection of his successor as Chairman were made by seniority, Mr. Harrison would be chosen. The leaders of the party, so the explanation runs, want, not Mr. Harrison, but another member of the Committee to succeed, and the easy thing is to get Mr. Harrison to step out by asking him to step up.

We are far from saying that this is the true explanation of Mr. Harrison's appointment, but of all the explanations we have heard it is the only one that even approaches the plausible. That questions regarding the policy of Philippine independence have entered into this selection we cannot seriously believe. Mr. Harrison has had no special qualification for coming to any conclusion regarding such a policy, or of adapting and modifying administrative methods in accordance with such a policy. We describe, for instance, elsewhere the report recently issued concerning slavery in the Philippines. There is nothing to indicate in the slightest degree that Mr. Harrison has any qualifications whatever in dealing with such a difficult problem, whether in the light of one policy concerning Philippine independence or another. The fact, if it is a fact, that Manuel Quezon, the Filipino delegate to Congress, recommended Mr. Harrison's appointment is of no relevance except as it indicates that to the mixture of American

partisan politics with Philippine affairs there is added the ingredient of Filipino party politics.

The office of the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands is the greatest administrative office that is filled by the appointing power of the President of the United States. It is reasonable for the American people to expect and require that it shall not be made

the means of rewarding party workers or building up party organizations.

BLOT THEM OUT!

A man in his youth was profane, impure, and dishonest. Then the horror of his sin came upon him. In the eyes of the world his would be called but the beginnings of sin, but to himself he stood in the line with the blasphemous, libertines, and bank defaulters. He made the fullest reparation in his power, and no one was hurt, and no one knew of his sins. The years went by, and he was beloved, honored, and respected in the community, the husband of a pure, devoted wife, and the father of beautiful children. Is this man a hypocrite and still in sin because he cannot endure the shame and suffering of laying before the world and his beloved ones the truth of his earlier years? And-are repentance and remorse the same?

To both questions emphatically No! Repentance is abandonment of sin; not from fear of its consequences, but from a hatred of sin itself. He who has abandoned sin and done all in his power to repair the evil which the sin has wrought has experienced full and adequate repentance. No sorrow is of any use which does not lead to such abandonment.

When the sin has been thus abandoned, the wrong-doer has simply to ask himself, How can I best promote the life of purity and goodness and truth in my own life and in the life of my fellow-man? To lay before the world and one's loved ones the history of past sins, long since abandoned, has no tendency to promote the life of purity, goodness, and truth. It would have rather the reverse tendency. The Bible says that when we have repented of our sins God buries them in the depths of the sea, blots them out of the book of his remembrance, remembers them no more against us forever. We are to

follow his example. follow his example. When we have abandoned our sins and made all the reparation possible, we are then to bury them in the depths of the sea, blot them out of the book of our remembrance, remember them no more forever. Bunyan in his " Pilgrim's Progress" illustrates this truth. When the Pilgrim came to the Cross of Christ, the burden which he had been bearing rolled off from his shoulders and disappeared, and he saw it no more. It would have been worse than folly for him to have turned around, gone back to his burden, and bound it on his back again, that he might show it to his fellow-travelers as he went upon his journey.

The difference between remorse and repentance is illustrated by the contrasted experiences of Judas Iscariot and Peter. Both felt sorry for their sin. Judas showed his sorrow by endeavoring to escape from it by self-destruction; Peter by a new life of loyalty and service.

WHAT IS THE USE OF
COLLEGES?

Mr. Edward Bok, by his correspondence with college men and women and his article in The Outlook giving the results of that correspondence and his conclusions thereon, has rendered the American public a valuable service. It is well worth while for the institution as for the individual to be brought occasionally to the judgment bar of public opinion and asked the question, What are you doing for the public? And this is especially desirable when the institution is supported by the public, as the college is supported by tuition fees, private endowments, and often by State appropriations.

We do not agree with Mr. Bok that the 1,426 students who failed to reply to his inquiry were guilty of discourtesy. A stamped return envelope does not entail upon the receiver a moral obligation to reply. A has no right to determine how B shall employ his time; no more right to demand that time by a written than by a personal interview. How he shall employ his time is a question which B must determine for himself.

On the other hand, those who defend the college on the ground that it is not the function of the college to teach spelling, writing, and grammar appear to us to miss the real question. The college does not merely teach, it certifies. The degree of A.B. signifies, or ought to signify, that he who possesses it is fairly well educated. He who cannot write an intelligible English letter is not fairly well educated. The object of an entrance examination is to ascertain whether the candidate for admission is sufficiently educated to enter college. The object of the final examination is to ascertain whether the candidate for graduation is sufficiently educated to gradu

perform a simple sum in addition and does not know what is the capital of the United States, he should not be allowed to enter college, still less to graduate with college honors. It is not the business of the college to teach English grammar; but it is the business of the college to ascertain whether its students know enough of English grammar to write grammatically. The degree of A.B. ought to mean something; and it certainly ought to mean that the Bachelor of Arts knows the fundamentals of the language of his country.

And it is very easy to ascertain.

Hampton Institute requires every applicant for admission to write a letter applying for admission. The American college might well follow the example of Hampton Institute. It might well require every candidate for admission to write a letter applying for admission, and giving in his letter necessary information, such as his address, the names of his parents, his residence, whe and how he prepared for college, etc. this letter were misspelled, ungrammatical, illegible, his application should be refused. Typewritten letters should be declined.

If

The University of Texas, we are told, requires every college exercise in writing to be grammatically and intelligibly written. That seems to us right. Every written exercise, whether in science, philosophy, history, or literature, might well be subjected to a double examination and required to come up to a double standard. It should give satisfactory evidence of accuracy of information and serious thinking; but it should also give satisfactory evidence that the writer knows how to express his information and his thoughts in grammatical and correctly spelled English. No illiterate person should be allowed to enter college, or to go on with his college course if he succeeded in squeezing in, or to graduate if he succeeded in escaping detection until his finals.

Mr. Bok is abundantly able to defend himself, and we are not writing to defend him. But we do not understand that he wants the college to prepare men for business. This certainly is not our demand. But we do demand, and we have a right to demand, that it prepare men and women for life. For we hold these two propositions to be axiomatic: The business of education is the development of character.

The test of character is ability to live a useful and happy life.