attained under Governor Hughes is one which Governor Whitman cannot afford to lose. Governor Whitman has an enviable chance to make clear his attitude towards these commissions by the reappointment of Dr. Maltbie, a Hughes appointee, and the only authoritative student of municipal problems left upon the New York City Commission. The point of interest and importance to the country at large in this problem of the handling of Public Service Commissions is this: Has the public sufficient power and desire to keep them non-partisan in character and judicial in attitude? Under Johnson in California the answer has been Yes. Under Dix, Sulzer, and Glynn in New York the answer is No. Too much attention cannot be given to this matter by men like Governor Whitman, who have it within their power so strongly to influence the success or failure of this experiment in governmental regulation. Mr. Whitman's attitude towards the Public Service Commissions will constitute a very important part of the record which his administration must bring before the people of his Stateand possibly before the country at large. FINAL HEARINGS ON If Chairman Walsh of the Commission of Industrial Relations were a theatrical manager he would certainly before this have been complimented on providing an all star performance for the auditors at the hearings which he has been holding in New York City. The last of the witnesses for his Commission numbered among them Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, Mr. Andrew Carnegie, and Mr. John D. Rockefeller. Mr. Morgan manifested no little reluctance in expressing himself on the general topic of labor. Unlike some others who have given their opinion before the Commission, he had no universal remedy to offer for conditions over which he apparently felt that he had little in the way of direct control. Mr. Morgan believes that as a director in numerous concerns his duty lies rather towards the financial operations of the organizations in which he is interested than in the attitude of these organizations towards their laborers. The latter problem he regards as one for the executive officers in direct control of the several corporations. Mr. Carnegie and Mr. Rockefeller differed much in their attitude and manner. Mr. Rockefeller was described as appearing cold and without emotion during every minute of his testimony. Mr. Carnegie, on the other hand, seemed to delight in the opportunity for expressing himself on the question of great philanthropic foundations and the general problem of capital and labor. He recounted with evident pleasure his attitude towards the men that were in his employ, and apparently took no little pride in the fact that his partners were said to have believed that he always stood ready to "grant the demands of labor, however unreasonable." He read into the record of the proceeding a quotation from his "Gospel of Wealth," published in 1888 in the "North American Review." This article gave expression to Mr. Carnegie's opinion of the attitude with which he approached the problems of rich and poor, and of his expectation for future social development. He then said: The laws of accumulation will be left free ; the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; intrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it would or could have done for itself. This day already dawns. Men may die without incurring the pity of their fellows, still sharers in great business enterprises from which their capital cannot be or has not been withdrawn and which is left chiefly at death for public uses, yet the day is not far distant when the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth which were free for him to administer during life will pass away "unwept, unhonored, and unsung," no matter to what use he leaves the dross which he cannot take with him. Of such as these the public verdict will then be: "The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced." AN ECHO OF THE LUDLOW STRIKE In dramatic contrast to the appearance of Mr. Morgan, Mr. Carnegie, and Mr. Rockefeller, was the testimony of Mrs. Petrucci, whose portrait, together with that of Mr. Morgan, appears in the illustrated section of this week's Outlook. Mrs. Petrucci was brought to New York by the United Mine Workers of America to testify as to the conditions in the Colorado labor war of last summer. With her three children Mrs. Petrucci was living in the tent colony at Ludlow when it was attacked by the State militia. In To escape their bullets she with many other women and children entered a cellar. this cellar her three children died from suffocation, caused by the burning of the tent colony by the militia, and Mrs. Petrucci herself barely escaped a similar fate. "How old were your children?" Chairman Walsh asked her. "The oldest was four; he would have been five yesterday," Mrs. Petrucci replied, as tears filled her eyes. "The others were two and a half and six months old." Mrs. Dominiski, another woman from the Colorado mines, gave similar testimony as to the burning of the tents by the militia. As to general labor conditions in the district in which she lived, she said: "I never saw a church in any of the coal camps except at Trinidad. There were no halls where people might meet, but there were always plenty of saloons. We had to trade in the company's stores, although the prices of provisions were higher than in the near-by towns. But we weren't allowed to buy outside. Whenever I got a chance I did, but if I'd ever been found out my husband would have been discharged." What will be the actual result of these hearings before the Commission it would be futile to prophesy. There is no reason, however, why an observer should be deterred from wondering whether some more definite and scientific method of investigating the complex problem of industrial relations cannot be found. No small amount of the recent testimony before the Commission was interesting -in the news sense-in inverse relation to its value as a means for securing industrial justice. GETTING TEMPERANCE FACTS In our picture section this week will be found an illustration of an automobile which can be called in more ways than one a real moving-picture show. It represents the latest method which has been adopted by the Boston Committee on Poster Campaigns against alcohol for getting facts before the public they I wish to reach. Not long after the launching of the poster movement in Boston The Outlook published several posters used by this Committee with considerable success in its anti-alcohol campaign. This campaign has now been running for over a year and a half, and much has been learned from this experience in publicity work. The Commit tee has found that detailed posters were by no means as effective as those which taught in large headlines; they have found that statements from men not directly concerned in the anti-alcohol movement proved the most convincing evidence for "the man on the street," they have found that in large cities it was hard to make a poster campaign effective because of the difficulty of making it prominent without large expenditure. As a result of this the educational motor car was devised to reach the man who could not be induced to enter an anti-alcohol exhibit, and who would pass by without reading even the best of "catchily" worded posters. By means of this motor car it was found possible last summer in Boston to gather a street crowd of more than five hundred at a time. The general character of the apparatus and of the posters shown is well illustrated by the photograph we publish. The screen attached to the front of the motor car is, of course, dropped during the progress of the exhibit through the streets. When some desirable point is reached, the screen is raised, and some twenty-five telling slides are run through the stereopticon machine placed in the tonneau. Then the car moves on to other fields. In our illustration one of the educational pictures is printed upon the screen itself to show more clearly the method of exhibition. An "American" play is something for which theatrical managers are supposed to be upon a perennial hunt, and which paradoxically the same managers are likewise often charged with suppressing for the benefit of the imported variety and their own pockets. It is a difficult undertaking to reconcile these two popular beliefs, and perhaps the effort is not worth the making. This conclusion is more easily accepted when a very real American play appears upon the scene, a play which is not only labeled with a "Made in America" sign, but which is truly American in spirit, character, interpretation, as well as in setting. Miss Alice Brown, in her "Children of the Earth," has attempted a very difficult featthe translation of New England, conscience and all, into dramatic terms. As a short story writer she has already made very valuable contributions to the literature of this muchdiscussed portion of America. In her new play now appearing at the Booth Theater in New York City she has again presented her familiar subject with a skill and effectiveness not soon to be forgotten. "Children of the Earth" is the story of a woman who bides her time with all the patience of the New England hills—a woman whose life is a fabric of devotion to custom and authority, the just inheritance of those who lay claim to the birthright of Puritanic tradition. It is the story also of those who have gone out of New England but upon whom shall we say it?—her long hand still heavily rests. It is the story of the foreign element, symbolized in the Portuguese wife of a New England farmer, that is creeping back from the towns into the byways of the New England hills. It is the story of the secret sentiment and passion that made New England possible and which bursts forth like a spring freshet from the tinkling ice of her frozen streams. So much of the intangible atmosphere of her country has Miss Brown woven into this story of conflicting loves, desires, and ideals that the problem of her play is difficult to describe. Perhaps it may, however, be briefly defined as a combination of the vital tyranny of morality and the domestic tyranny of putting-out-the-cat-a phrase which may be permitted to stand for the routine of every-day life. Both of these things have a powerful influence upon the lives of almost all her characters. Furthermore, the play is fatalistic to the extent that her characters are bound to a code of thought stronger than their wills. Incidentally, it may be remarked that the writing of it won for her a prize of ten thousand dollars offered by Mr. Winthrop Ames. Unlike most prize productions, the size of the reward won is the least claim it possesses to distinction. THE VATICAN AND THE The Protestant world has been somewhat startled at the announcement that the British Government has sent an envoy to the Vatican. It has never been British policy to recognize the Papacy as a temporal power. In recent years it has seemed specially inopportune to do so. In the first place, it would have embarrassed the French Government, which had withdrawn its Ambassador from the Vatican. In the second place, it might have annoyed the Italian Government, which is supposed to have never regarded too favor ably the proposal of representation from a non-Catholic Power, like England or Japan, to the Vatican. Four of the Catholic Powers have enjoyed the privilege of sending an Ambassador to the Vatican-France, Austria, Spain, and Portugal. But France and Portugal have broken off their diplomatic relations with the Papacy. As Spain is of less account than Austria, of the two remaining ambassadors the Austrian representative apparently enjoys the most consideration of any one at the Holy See. Next in diplomatic rank are the Ministers, and of them Germany has two, one from Bavaria and one from Prussiaboth able men. Thus Germany and Austria enjoy a strong representation at the Vatican as compared with what England, France, and Russia have had. This situation has, it is contended by some, been greatly to the advantage of Germany and Austria, though Vatican policy does not indicate it. At all events, England has now changed the situation in sending officially a special envoy to the Pope. He is Sir Henry Howard, well known in this country; the late Lady Howard was an American. Sir Henry has spent a lifetime in diplomatic service, and has gone to Rome in no recognition of the Pope's temporal power, but, first, to congratulate Benedict XV on his election to the Papacy; and at the same time, as the British Government avows, to lay before him the motives which compelled it to intervene in the present war, and especially to inform him from time to time concerning the events of the war and of the British Government's attitude towards the various questions which arise from those events. This frank statement would indicate that the period of Sir Henry Howard's mission might cover the duration of the war. The British Government's proceeding has awakened wide interest everywhere. We shall see whether its results are commensurate with the very unusual character of Sir Henry Howard's mission. "MISS BRADDON' AND HER Novels The name "Miss Braddon" instantly recalls her most famous story," Lady Audley's Secret," which was not only a "best seller " in its day, but is still read to some extent, and still, we are told, is occasionally seen on the stage in its dramatic form. It was written in a hurry to fill a magazine's need when another plan for a serial had fallen through. Like its successor, "Aurora Floyd," it was melodramatic, sentimental, and tragic. Mary Elizabeth Braddon, who died in England on February 4, began to write fiction in 1860, and continued to publish novels until 1913-in these fifty-three years she wrote about sixty-five novels! While she always had a strong leaning toward exciting plots, many of her later books followed the modern trend of English society novels, and were as gentle and ladylike as the mildest of Mrs. Humphry Ward's stories. In private life "Miss Braddon" was Mrs. John Maxwell, and her husband was the publisher of "Lady Audley's Secret." Her son, Mr. W. B. Maxwell, now with the British army, has written several novels, which have received attention and comment from the critics. "Miss Braddon" is said to have received over $1,000,000 from her writings. THE BATTLE OF LIFE The Lenten season gains every year a wider observance, not only because many churches have always observed it, but also because Christians of every name feel the need of remembering the great experience which it commemorates. No recorded experience. has been studied with greater seriousness or deeper reverence. Those to whom Christ is the Master of life and those to whom he is one among several great religious teachers are agreed that the forty days in the wilderness hold a unique place in the history of the human spirit. There have been many interpretations of the mysterious happenings in that lonely vigil, and its symbolic meaning has grown as patient and reverent thought has striven to penetrate the solitude in which the man who called himself the Son of God as well as the Son of Man went through a struggle which cleared his vision, set his will immovably to fulfill a mission of divine helpfulness, and sent him in radiant strength on the road to Calvary and to the morning of the resurrection. Henceforth there was for him perfect union with the Father; and unclouded faith in the heavenly vision kept him courageous amid the misery of the world, and tranquil and serene in the presence of death. In that lonely struggle the one fact that stands out with tragic and splendid distinct ness is that Christ was fighting for his soul. The temptations which assail men at every stage of the journey and make life a long battle met him on the very threshold and challenged him at the very start to prove his worthiness to be the redeemer of the race. He who was to save the souls of men must first save his own soul; he who was to win the battle of life for others must first win it for himself. It was a clear and definite issue that was fought out in the wilderness; it has been fought out every day since; it is the one fundamental issue in history. It is often concealed by other and more obvious issues; there are those who deny that there is any such issue; what is called civilization seems at times to have disproved its existence until civilization suddenly gives way and men find themselves standing on the edges of appalling abysses, and realize that under the fairest landscape there sleep to-day, as there slept a thousand years ago, the forces that rend and wreck in thirty seconds the work of thirty centuries. Time and wealth and beauty and the growth of order have changed the form of the age-old and unending battle which all men must fight to keep their souls alive. It is a beautiful world; it is crowded with absorbing interests; it is a better world than it used to be because more men and women are fighting the battle for their souls; in the future it will help them through wiser laws and more wholesome conditions to make the fight. But to the end of the world every man and woman must fight for the soul. No change in institutions and laws, no refinement of ways of living, no loveliness which art can bring to humanity, will ever win the battle once for all. Every age must fight for its soul as this age is fighting to-day, and every man and woman must pass through that struggle. It is inherent in the very nature of a stage of life which, through temptation and struggle, offers us the strength and purity which alone make God and heaven credible and real. SELF-RAISING CHILDREN I could never understand this talk about mothers bringing up the children. It seems to me that fathers should have something to do with it too, but, as a matter of fact, what we need is self-raising children. This interesting view of child training is ascribed by the New York "Tribune" to Mr. Frank P. Walsh, Chairman of the Federal Commission on Industrial Relations, who has been devotedly engaged in nursing and developing valuable testimony on labor conditions in this country. Manifestly, Mr. Walsh does not think that evidence is self-raising. Self-raising children! Good! Fine! What a lot of anxiety, self-sacrifice, and worry will thus be taken from our shoulders. We wish Mr. Walsh would devise some means of providing us with self-raising colts, self-raising lambs, self-raising pigs, and self-raising flowers and vegetables. We should like to see Mr. Walsh's self-raising vegetable garden next June. It will be a beautiful sight, no doubt. By the way, we have a somewhat considerable note to pay at the bank in about four months' time. How eagerly we wish Mr. Walsh would propound for us a theory of self-raising funds with which to meet it! THE GERMAN DECREE By its decree of February 4 Germany has introduced into the war elements that may gravely affect the United States. This decree, or proclamation, according to the official text transmitted to the United States Department of State, is as follows: The waters around Great Britain, including the whole of the English Channel, are declared hereby to be included within the zone of war, and after the 18th inst. all eneiny merchant vessels encountered in these waters will be destroyed, even if it may not be possible always to save their crews and passengers. Within this war zone neutral vessels are exposed to danger, since, in view of the misuse of the neutral flags ordered by the Government of Great Britain on the 31st ult. and of the hazards of naval warfare, neutral vessels cannot always be prevented from suffering from the attacks intended for enemy ships. The routes of navigation around the north of the Shetland Islands in the eastern part of the North Sea and in a strip thirty miles wide along the Dutch Coast are not open to the danger zone. Until this year any armed vessel attacking without warning any merchant vessel and sending her passengers and crew to the bottom would have been regarded as a pirate. It is inconceivable that the German Government could have imagined that by the issuance of a proclamation or decree it could instantly transform an act of piracy into an act of war. We no longer believe in these days that meta morphosis can be secured by saying "Abracadabra !" Public sentiment as to what is right will remain unchanged in spite of this German decree. After February 18, as before February 4, the man, the ship, the nation, that acts the pirate must expect to be treated as a pirate. For that reason we do not believe that Germany intends to do what the plain meaning of the words of her decree might lead one to understand. As is pointed out in Professor Stowell's article in this issue, the war vessel of a belligerent may, if he can, hold up any merchant vessel and board her, and if she finds that the merchantman belongs to the enemy, or, if a neutral vessel, is carrying contraband destined for the enemy, can seize her, put aboard her a prize crew, and send her to one of the war-ship's home ports to be held for condemnation by a prize court; and if the merchantman belongs to the enemy country, the war-ship seizing her may, under the plea of exigency, take off the passengers and the crew and sink her. This has been done time and time again in every naval war of any consequence, and repeatedly by both the British and the Germans in this war. It cannot, therefore, be that the German proclamation of February 4 is a warning that Germany intends to follow this practice, for she has already followed it and is justified in following it. If by this means she can isolate Great : Britain, driving British shipping from the seas, she is entirely justified in doing so. If she can do it with submarines, she is just as much justified as she has been in undertaking to do it by cruisers. If a German submarine can stop a British merchantman, take off her passengers and crew, and then send a torpedo into her, she is by all the rules of war entitled to do so, and no one can complain. But this is not what she threatens to do. That is made perfectly clear by her warning to neutral vessels. There is only one way by which a neutral vessel can be mistaken for an enemy vessel, and that is by mistaking her appearance. If a vessel is once boarded and searched, there can be no possibility of mistake. When, therefore, Germany officially says that all enemy merchant vessels encountered in these waters will be destroyed," and that "neutral vessels cannot always be prevented from suffering from the attacks. intended for enemy ships," it is evident that Germany intends this decree to be understood as a notification that her war-ships are going to attack merchantmen without warn 66 |