the topics-sex, home, vocation, nationality, sports, race-are thoroughly discussed and the group mind arrived at in a democratic way. The combined thinking of all the groups is then gathered up in the expert leaders' meetings, and their conclusions are referred back to the entire Conference at the close of each day. The thinking of many is better than that of one. Nothing is "put over" by brilliant oratory. CONFER is the watchword of the Conference.

Here, for example, at the close of the first day's discussions are the outstanding conclusions: Twenty-five groups placed sex at the head of the list, as the most important problem facing youth. Fourteen groups put sex second. The home was placed first by seventeen groups. Many felt that these two problems were inseparable.

The reasons for the priority of sex were: (1) Motion pictures, sex drama, modern fashion in dress; (2) effects of materialistic conception of life and Freudian psychology; (3) economic conditions, leading to postponement of marriage; (4) increased prostitution and venereal diseases since the war; (5) inadequate sex education in home, school, and church; (6) weakened parental control; (7) modern passion for freedom; (8) intense desire of young people for a larger measure of physical enjoyment; (9) bad housing; (10) modern craze for new dances.

Needless to say, these disclosures were a ringing challenge to the Y. M. C. A., as well as to every other organization working for youth, to combat and replace evil amusements, bad literature,

A Committee of the Conference at Work

and every other destructive force operating to the detriment of youth. It was pointed out that the application of the teachings of Christ as well as a vigorous educational program were necessary to gain this end.

The five other topics are being discussed with equal frankness.

A

NOTHER feature of this Conference is the fact that 231 of the 1,548 delegates are older boys-mostly about seventeen years of age. Never before in any of the World Conferences has the voice of youth been heard. Older men did the talking. It was they who determined policies and told the boys what was best for them. All the boys here represent groups of boys in their own. lands. There are seventy-eight boys in the American delegation. I did not learn until my arrival that the coming of the majority of these chaps was made possible by a fund which was raised by 25,000 American boys-more democracy! All these younger fellows, 231 of them, are living together in a near-by high school. They are crowded but happy in their "Indoor Camp," as it has been dubbed. Fellowship and friendship on an international scale in the actual laboratory is being developed. It is not a "stunt." The boys are actually mixing, and the precipitation is a ally mixing, and the precipitation is a rich product. They are giving the best they have as they face together the great issues which to-day are challenging them. Their presence here has a wholesome influence on the older men of the Conference. Their voice has registered.

The Conference is a triumph for good will. Ill will is forgotten. American boys are learning by personal contact that not all Germans are of the arrogant, beer-drinking variety. Some striking friendships have sprung up between the boys of these two countries. Poles and Germans are learning how to discuss burning issues without heat. French boys are discovering many admirable traits of their German neighbors. White boys from America are having their eyes and minds opened by black boys from Africa. Japanese and Americans work together on closest terms.

There is manifested in every group a will to actually understand the other fellow's view-point. Considering the difficulties of language, race, traditions, cultural backgrounds, and national prejudices that have been overcome, I feel that this Christian Conference is one of the most remarkable held in many years. It is not simply a demonstration staged as a "spectacular stunt." It has proved the belief held by an increasing number that men and boys can get together to discuss their differences if they are motivated by idealism and a spirit of fairness and good will.

But the spirit of open-mindedness and fellowship would have been suppressed and thwarted had not the mechanism for co-operation in the form of discussion groups been provided. It must also be remarked that a sense of interdependence had been previously created by the extended inquiry on the subjects before the Conference. Delegates came, not to proclaim a particular national viewpoint, but to pool their experiences and

findings. And in this process many rich experiences are transpiring.

This is the first real parliament the Y. M. C. A. has held on a world scale. All the others have been conventions

conventional conventions-ending with many speeches and pages of resolutions that meant little. A new day has dawned for the Young Men's Christian Association. May not the discoveries made

here pioneer similar methods for other organizations that are seeking a more abundant life?

Helsingfors, Finland, August 6, 1926.

I

S parliamentary government a failure?

No, say the citizens of the United States, Canada, England, Holland, Scandinavia, Switzerland.

Yes, say the people of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Greece, Turkey.

How about France? Some French say yes, others no.

The Outlook's Editor in Europe

terial portfolios as can possibly be got. Among these groups the largest is the Radical-Socialist, with 136 members. Next comes the Democratic-Republican Union of the Right, with 102 members, of whom perhaps ex-President Millerand is the most notable. Then come the Socialists, with 98 members, led by the astute Léon Blum. Following these are the Socialist-Republicans, with 40 members, and the Radicals, with the same number, of whom MM. Briand and Loucheur are the most prominent. Following this are the groups known as the lowing this are the groups known as the Democratic-Republican of the Left, Democratic-Republican of the Left, with 34 members, and the Republican, with 32. Now appear the Communists, with 28 members, led by the effervescent Marcel Cachin; the Independents, with 27; the Independents of the Left, with 16; and, finally, the Democrats, with 14.

Menacing, because extreme Socialist W

influence was seen to be ever more prominent and powerful, a spirit of subtle disorder which, carried to the limit, would render impossible any democratic parliamentary government.

Menacing, moreover, from another cause encroachment on the executive branch. More and more the legislative branch has been emphasizing its right to summon Cabinet Ministers and question them. By consequent sermonizings and reprimands it has smartly indicated the courses of conduct of those Ministers; otherwise, it has added, an adverse vote in the Chamber would force them from office, the Chamber having the exclusive right to make and dominate Cabinets. Indeed, it has worked this interpellatory system so continually as practically to reduce the executive branch to a mere subsidiary part of the legislative. The Chamber committees, in this control of Cabinet Ministers, have become really, as M. Poincaré has just pointed out, executive civil and military organs, making normal Cabinet life intolerable.

Menacing, furthermore, because of the multiplicity of ever-shifting parliamentary groups, continually maneuvering in order to upset the powers that be and to claim for themselves as many Minis

HAT to do with all this complication? Overthrow the system and go back to old-fashioned royalism. So proclaims daily the "Action Française,' the organ of Léon Daudet and Charles Maurras. Have a king, as of yore-one far above parties and private concerns of all sorts, one embodying all the country's vital interests and, through the principle of hereditary succession, securing continnuity as well as singleness of leadership and purpose. Of course, as a matter of consistent doctrine, the "Action Française" has something to offer.

No, not that. Hear "La Volonté," if you like, whose editor, Albert Desbarry, wanted to bring the war to a close by any means and at whatever cost. The views of this journal are the well-known views of Joseph Caillaux, as expressed in his plan for "crossing the Rubicon" and making himself a sort of Cæsar in the critical days when Clemenceau was stirring up France to fight to a finish.

No, again. Hear the Fascist echo of "Le Nouveau Siècle," whose editor, Georges Valois, has broken away from his former paper, the "Action Française." çaise." The monarchy ideal, as you may gather from his newspaper, has not always been lived up to. Moreover, from the point of view of practical poli

tics, how, after so long and successful experience of Republicanism, could monarchy again take root in France? That is not saying, however, that an antiCommunist, anti-pacifist, Fascist scheme of personal power could not take root there. It has done so in Italy, and there have been imitations more or less close in Spain, Portugal, Poland, Greece, and Turkey. Why not in France also?

In a different class stands "La Liberté" with Pierre Taittinger playing the part of a tribune at the head of the jeunesses patriotes, whose anti-Communist, anti-pacifist spirit has not so far materialized in any very definite political form.

None of these things are for us, says "Paris-France," speaking for the "sons of the Revolution," recently described in The Outlook. They are also against parliamentary government, but are against Fascism as much as against Communism. They propose government by a small group of ten men, such as France had under the Directorate. It would carry out what its protagonists learned from action in the war, as distinguished from mere present-day words. It would proclaim the value of technical knowledge, of organization, of unity of command, above all, of superiority over politicians.

Then come the other and betterknown newspapers, reflecting more robust republican opinion and showing that experience has already condemned the schemes advocated by the above journals. Take the plan for a directorate of ten, for instance. Its historic prototype revealed the fact that it never worked smoothly, while it promptly degenerated into petty squabbles and rivalries among the ten.

The eleventh-hour conversion of an obstinate Parliament, now adjourned, shows what the right men at the right time can do. The only thing, then, for France, one would suppose, is simply to be content with present possibilities, amending them as best she may. The splendid accomplishments of the past few weeks certainly afford ground for hope.

I

Y. M. Mercantile !⠀ CINCINNATI, DR.

N a recent number of The Outlook

instances were given of the dismissal of prohibition enforcement agents whose only offense was the zealous performance of their duty, and after each instance of zeal and consequent dismissal the editor asked, Why?

For the simple reason that the Volstead Act places all enforcement agents under political patronage and opens wide the door to the most flagrant practices of the spoils system.

A

s first passed by Congress, the act conformed to the National Civil Service Law in providing that all offices in the new bureau should be put in the classified service. President Wilson sent the act back to Congress with his veto. The drys had a substantial majority in both houses, but it soon became evident that the two-thirds majority required to override the veto could not be furnished by the dry vote alone. Mr. Volstead therefore, to conciliate his opponents, agreed to an amendment which exempted all enforcement agents from the usual Civil Service rules and turned them over as spoils to the victors. Enough Senators and Representatives willing to sacrifice their principles for the sake of more patronage were found to make the required majority; the bill was passed over the veto with a rush; and then began "an orgy of office trafficking unequaled since the days of Andrew Jackson and the Civil War." Court records of the trials of dishonest and incompetent enforcement agents show that ex-saloonkeepers, ex-bartenders, and men who had served jail sentences were—and still are-appointed to places of trust in the Prohibition Bureau, and the number of faithful trained agents dismissed because of political pressure is only another proof of the power given to unscrupulous political leaders by the exemption clause in the Volstead Act.

A year after the act became nominally effective I asked the chief enforcement agent of a populous district how he was getting on. "Very badly," he said. "One-third of my employees are ignorant, untrained men who do not know how to make a report and in whose testimony I can place no confidence. Another third, I have reason to believe, are ex-saloon-keepers and ex-bartenders, whose aim is to fill their pockets and incidentally make the law ridiculous and unpopular. The remaining third are.

honest, capable men, but I cannot do all the work required of me with only onethird of the necessary force. And the worst of it is that I have to take every man, no matter how incapable, whom the political bosses send me, and I dare not dismiss any man, however ignorant or dishonest, if he has a big politician behind him." And then he added, "I used to be lukewarm over the Civil Service laws, but now I am red hot."

TH

'HE National Civil Service Reform League, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, and the National League of Women Voters have protested against the exemption clause in the Volstead Act from the minute it was first proposed, but, singularly enough, they have never had the co-operation of the men and organizations one would naturally suppose most eager to further any attempt to make the act effective. Mr. Volstead, as an advocate of the spoils system, has stood firm for the exemption clause, and apparently has never recognized its disastrous consequences. The Anti-Saloon League and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union have objected to the repeal of the clause for three reasons:

First, because it is absolutely necessary that prohibition agents be dry by conviction and in practice, and under the impersonal Civil Service Law there is no guaranty that this necessity will be met. One is tempted to retort, "Have all the enforcement officers appointed by political patronage been dry by conviction and in practice?" But the mild answer that turns away wrath is that, since prohibition agents are not in the classified service, the National Civil Service Commission has made no rulings concerning them, and what it might or might not rule in case the clause were repealed can be only a matter of conjecture. The universal ruling, however, that every applicant for office must produce the testimony of ten reputable citizens of his own community that he is an honest and lawabiding man sufficiently covers any hypothetical case and makes it highly improbable that any drunkard, exsaloon-keeper, ex-bartender, or man with a criminal record could be appointed to any responsible position whatsoever.

The second objection is that it is absolutely necessary that a prohibition agent suspected of evading or violating the law be instantly dismissed, and under Civil Service rules instant dismissals are im

possible. Again we would fain retort, "Have all agents suspected of dishonest practices been instantly dismissed under the present system of political patronage?" But again the most convincing answer lies in the law itself. The chief of every Government bureau is empowered by the law to dismiss on the spot any offending employee, the only obligation laid upon him being that the reasons for dismissal must be given in writing and must be neither political nor religious. The offending employee is allowed three days to justify himself, but his explanation must be addressed to the chief who dismissed him, and with that chief rests the final decision. In fact, it is only in the classified service that instant dismissal is possible, for under the spoils system no officeholder, whatever be his sins of omission or commission, can be discharged without the permission of the political leader who appointed him.

The third objection is that under the Civil Service Law an applicant for the position of enforcement agent must show three years of legal training, and many applicants who otherwise might be especially fitted for that special service would be automatically disqualified. For the third time, the answer is that, since prohibition agents are exempt from examination, the Commission has made no ruling concerning their special qualifications. In analogous positions in the Bureau of Internal Revenue one year's legal training is required, and there seems no reason to suppose that three times that amount would be required in the Prohibition Bureau.

The Anti-Saloon League has offered from time to time to support a bill to repeal the exemption clause of the Volstead Act, but always with the proviso that all agents in actual service shall be "covered in"—that is, retain their offices without examination. No genuine advocate of the merit system could accept any such proposition, but a compromise bill has been submitted to the present Congress which provides that prohibition agents shall be placed in the classified service, and that all now holding office shall take the prescribed examination, and those failing to pass shall be promptly dismissed.

The advocates of the merit system do not claim that if the Prohibition Bureau be placed in the classified service all enforcement agents will be certified saints

lower plane, then, these two seventeenyear-old lads were duly retiring. Nevertheless, on occasion, one of them could discourse upon Einstein and his abstruse theories with understanding, and the amount of mathematics he had at his finger-tips, including calculus, was a revelation. Few of our college sophomores have as advanced and as thorough a mathematical background as had this Winchester lad of seventeen. And the classical youth knew his classics as few of our college men get to know them; but outside these and the subjects included in a curriculum that satisfied an almost bygone age I fear he was not very well informed.

Let us see if we cannot give a rough picture of Winchester in a few words.

First. Traditions! Winchester is all traditions, and loves and thrives upon them, and will fight for them if necessary-no matter how archaic, unsanitary, or even absurd they are to-day. Traditions of a kind are of an immense value, and we in America, who have few of a scholastic nature, would do well to envy those who have. But in Winchester they still use trenchers at table. To them the idea of a central heating plant is anathema. The discomfort and lack

The "

of decent sanitation in their dormitories would cause a revolt among the boys of any American denominational $300-perannum boarding-school; and Winchester is very wealthy, spending, for instance, $70,000 per year on 70 scholarships. It is all right to be "Spartan;" but why not recognize that in the last few centuries since Winchester was founded much has been learned concerning hygiene-let alone plumbing?

Traditions? Well, rather! A fine tradition of classical scholarship. And beside the very cot of my delightfully mediæval young guide-he was a "prefect," by the way, in charge of a dormitory of mixed ages-beside his very cot, stuck in the wall, was an ancient candlebracket in which was stuck an old-fashioned tallow candle. And such a candle burned there every night, because, some centuries ago, a poor browbeaten "fag," wishing to kill his prefect-a highly justifiable ambition, no doubt—by mistake killed his own brother, who, according to custom, had been given the thankless job of warming up the prefect's bed! Therefore the candle had been decreedwhether for the protection of future prefects or bed-warming brothers I could not quite decide.

Traditions! Some of the finest and best! Great men have been in Winchester and owed much to it. It means something to live and to labor within such beautiful old buildings amid the memories of many men who have helped make England great. But there is no distinction made. If anything is a tradition, whether beautiful or the reverse, whether inspiring or ridiculous, it is held to as a devotee holds to his religion.

Second. An able lot of lads--and this for the reason that only a chosen few can enter Winchester-picked from a large number of applicants. With such a selection very able men would come forth from this institution-not able because of their training as much as from the inherent ability that brought about their admission in the first place.

Third. A complete assurance of a superiority that cannot even imagine its being questioned-an assurance that will even enable (and this is our last picture) a highly dignified and complacent senior, in long black gown and shiny high hat, to stroll serenely to the swimming bath with an enormous bath towel about his neck and not even have an inward intimation that he can in the least possible manner look ridiculous!

T

HE National Society of Penal Information, of which Thomas Mott Osborne is the head, has issued its second (biennial) report, under the title "Handbook of American Prisons, 1926." It embraces observations made by careful investigators and is edited by Austin H. MacCormick and Paul W. Garrett. They go deep into the miseries, mysteries, and merits of Northern and Western places of confinement.

Though progress is reported in many instances, the survey finds much to be desired in the improvement of prison management. The faults group them selves in about this order: Lack of effort to turn the convict out fitted for better citizenship; cruel punishment; unfit cells; poor culinary and feeding arrangements; depressing forms of discipline; contract labor; lack of interest in the individual; and, worst of all, idleness or employment that adds no value to the prisoner's attainments.

This does not mean that there are no bright spots. There are. Minnesota remains foremost in the economic use of

By DON C SEITZ

convicts and makes the best provision for their families. All prisoners receive wages ranging from 25 cents to $1.10 per day, the average return per man being 50 cents. The men are employed in making binder twine and farm machinery. The total earnings last year were $485,173.31, yielding a profit over the cost of running the prison and paying a profit of $36,972.76, which accrued to the State. The prisoners received in wages $108,152.42 and their families were given $20,655.43. About onefourth of the men have dependents. The investigators could find no fault with the management or prison at Stillwater save that, "in the industrial development, the individual appears to be swallowed by the great industrial machine." This sometimes happens outside of prisons!

In contrast, the Missouri penitentiary at Jefferson City is accounted "one of the worst among those covered in this book. The oldest cell house is not fit for The mess halls are dreary and odoriferous; most of the shops dark, poorly lighted, badly ventilated, and

...

use.

overcrowded; the hospital generally neglected and meagerly equipped." The cell house in question was found to hold 809 Negroes in 152 cells, without plumbing or ventilation. The prisoners, so far as employed, make shoes, clothing, and brooms, the shoe shop giving some vocational training. The whole punishment system is "unusually harsh and repressive."

The industries, however, make a considerable showing against the cost of maintenance, bringing in $805,403.46 last year, the deficit being $254,265.89. Inmates received $38,825.30 in compensation for labor. A new cell house is credited with being one of the best in the country. The prison population is large 3,277 when last checked up.

In the penitentiary at San Quentin "there is surprisingly little that is of credit to such a State as California.” The jute mill is credited with wasting the labor of one thousand men on machinery that is forty years old, and the remaining industries in the "State use" plan do not afford work enough to keep the