sity of Iowa, and probably in many other such schools.

Every graduate of a good school of journalism to-day knows the whole history of the New York "Sun" and the difference between its style and that of Mr. Abbott in this article. He is earnestly admonished to strive for its brevity and brilliance. . . .

Finally, the newspaper is not literature, doesn't pretend to be literature. It is willing to leave literature to excellent periodicals like The Outlook, which should always be distinguished for catholicity of knowledge and a modern broadness of mind. The newspaper deals with news, all sorts of news, including news about commodities which its readers may wish to buy. Mr. Ochs has made a far greater success of the New York "Times" than Dana ever did or ever could have made of the "Sun" by building his great paper around the central idea "All the news that's fit to print."

Upon the editorial pages and in the literary supplements of great newspapers may be found wisdom and wit which compares favorably with anything written either by Dana or Mr. Abbott's favorite Oliver favorite Oliver Wendell Holmes. But these articles are written for the millions of to-day, not for the few of the future. Their writers know that it "may be glorious to write thoughts that shall glad the two or three high souls, like those far stars that come in sight once in a century" -but they are more concerned with the duty of writing "one simple word

S

which now and then shall waken their free nature in the weak and friendless sons of men"

"To write some earnest verse or line, Which, seeking not the praise of art, Shall make a clearer faith and manhood shine

In the untutored heart."

FRED J. LAZELL.

It is pleasant, even to a garrulous, omnibus, and untutored journalist like myself, to find Professor Lazell quoting poetry. A love of poetry is not out of place in a journalist. The poet Stedman, to whom I have already referred, after graduating from Yale, began his career as a small-town journalist, and during the Civil War was sent to the front by the New York "Tribune" as a war correspondent. Dana of the "Sun" was a voracious reader of poetry. He compiled and edited a monumental poetical anthology, which is still one of the best in the English language, although I doubt if Dana would have cared very much for the kind of verse which Professor Lazell quotes.

After receiving Mr. Lazell's letter I happened to run across an observation by Mr. Edward P. Mitchell which seems to me pertinent. Every newspaper man knows that Mr. Mitchell is the dean of American journalists. He is also a man of letters, like Longfellow and Hawthorne a graduate of Bowdoin, and has been honored with university degrees of

distinction. He was for forty-five years

a member of the editorial staff of the New York "Sun" in the heyday of its brilliance and was editor-in-chief of that journal from 1903 to 1920, when it was buried by the late Mr. Munsey in his newspaper mausoleum. I do not know what Mr. Mitchell's opinion is of schools of journalism, but I take it that he would sympathize with my hope that the new school will not throw the old school wholly into the discard, and my belief that what the American newspaper man needs is a sound liberal education rather than a technical journalistic education, for he says:

"Were I the emergency autocrat of this [English] language I should proclaim in drastic regulations and enforce by severe penalties the American duty of adherence to the old habits of speech, the old scrupulous respect for the finer shades of meaning, the old rigid observance of the moralities of word relations; and this I believe can be done only by maintaining the classical culture at high potency. For the 'guy' or 'gink' who is 'wise to what we want,' in his dismal attempt to put 'punch' into the vernacular, is punching the intelligence out of it; and he promises, unless deterred, to leave the precious fabric as full of holes as a colander and as void of working efficiency as a last month's commutation ticket."

OME of the greatest religious leaders in history were unschooled. If they were our contemporaries, the intelligentsia of to-day would have for them the contempt they show to all who are not sophisticated. Most of the Apostles were men of little education.

And yet for generations religious leadership has been treated as if it were a learned profession. The ministry, like medicine and the law, has been made the subject of a special curriculum, varying from time to time and from place to place, but judged according to constantly rising standards of scholarship.

It is widely believed that the ministry as a profession has been declining.

A few weeks ago in an editorial I raised the question whether ministers should be educated-as ministers.

In the course of that editorial I wrote:

Religion is a form of power. It is not knowledge; it is not theory; it is

not belief. Millions of ignorant people have been profoundly religious. Millions who have been puzzled by contradictory theories about religion have nevertheless been religious. Millions who have not known really what to believe, from long before the days of Thomas to the present, have at the same time been deeply and strongly religious. These millions have somewhere found a source of power which they have utilized in their lives, and that power has been their religion. Whether it has always been a good power or an evil power, a good religion. or an evil one, is not to the point. It has not been knowledge that has given them this power, for they have been ignorant; or theological theories, for they have not understood them; nor even belief, for they have retained that power though they have doubted.

Provided a minister can "show men and women how to get the power that will sustain them when discouraged,

make them masters of their own spirits, keep them calm in the midst of the tempest, and give them courage, fidelity, energy, and reasonableness when they have a work to do or a cause to maintain, ... what other training does he need," I asked, "than that of an educated man who can understand the points of view of those with whom he has to deal and can speak to them in their language?" And I put to my readers these three questions:

What do you believe is the greatest obstacle to religious faith?

What, in your opinion, is the greatest need of the ministry?

How best can the Church secure men who can seize and translate the power of religion?

Many letters have come in reply. For the most part these letters can be put into four classes:

First, those that question whether there has been any real decline in the

quality and influence of ministers or in the power of the Church;

Second, those that attribute whatever loss there is in the power of the ministry, not to the ministry itself, but to the laity in the churches;

Third, those that attribute the loss of

the influence of the Church to a break

down of belief in old dogmas, particularly in doctrines about the Bible, and the failure of the Church to recognize and accept as true those discoveries of science which people not bound by dogma have no hesitation in accepting;

Fourth, those that attribute the loss of power in the Church to the substitution of theology, whether old or new, for re'ligion, the substitution of views about God for confidence in God.

This week I can only quote from one letter in each of these classifications. In later issues of The Outlook I hope that there will be space for more ample quotations.

A

ERNEST HAMLIN ABBOTT.

From a Minister in Ohio

T what approximate date did the Church begin to lose prestige and influence? In what ways is this loss indicated? If there has been a loss in some particulars, has there not been a gain in others, or in general? The files of the Hartford (Connecticut) "Courant" of some sixty to eighty years ago contain articles on the decline of the Church at that period. Yet during and since that time the Church, though divided, was the most influential organization in the abolition of human slavery.

I would question also "the decline in the number and quality of students for the ministry." The number of students enrolled in seminaries that were or still are Congregational increased from 162 in 1860-5 to 794 in 1924. Considering the recognized sterility of Congregationalists in producing ministerial candidates, it may be that the number of students in other denominational seminaries has declined. (?) in like proportion.

The answer to a question might determine the quality of the students now in seminaries: In proportion to students enrolled, which has the largest number of Phi Beta Kappa keys, or "honor men," among the students-the law schools, the medical schools, the higher technical schools, or the seminaries? In physical quality, surely, the students for the ministry have not declined. Many of them wear their college initial or class numeral for athletic prowess. Morally, no graduate of seminary in recent years has been present at a barn-raising where whisky was provided in such quantity that the

The principal obstacle to religious faith to-day seems to be the "abundance of things" which we possess. Thomas Edison, questioned in a recent interview about coming inventions, said: "The world doesn't need more inventions just now, until general intelligence has increased so that men can be had to operate what we have." We might add that most of us are apparently trying to oper ate all the inventions we have; and that it takes time-all the time we have.

Business, the club, the automobile, the movie, the radio, the house (if there is enough left to purchase one after acquiring the other necessities)-all these things are so immediate, and so insistent upon being attended to, that spiritual affairs are easily and completely forgotten, except in times of stress. We appear to be mastered by the things which should be our servants.

It is not strange that the minister as well as the layman is infected with the desire to "keep up with the Joneses," and that many men pass by the ministry because they are unwilling to spend their lives in the certainty of limited financial means. A recent graduating class in divinity at one of our best-known schools divinity at one of our best-known schools voted that its members would go into other work rather than accept a position paying less than $2,000. Granting that this is not a large salary (though beginners in most kinds of work have to accept less), the incident shows clearly what was uppermost in the minds of those men.

I would have a minister's salary commensurate with the life of his parish, in order that he might not be, as he often is, a subject for merchandise discounts, free medical and dental service, and miscellaneous gifts; in short, that he might be self-respecting, not an object of charity. But the danger is even greater if he considers that the dignity of his pro

fession calls for a higher reward than that of his neighbor; simplicity is worth far more in example than in precept. The clergyman, above all professional men (unless we except the teacher), is expected to value his work above the reward. If he does not, he can hardly hope to be truly successful. Craftsmanship for its own sake is sadly needed everywhere; and we have accustomed

ourselves to expect our ministers to show us the way.

The chief lack in the pulpit to-day, as well as in the pew, is clear, independent thinking. Anti-evolution propaganda; Fundamentalist-Modernist disputes; lack of sense of values, as shown by insistence upon creeds and theology rather than life all these are, to the outsider, indications that the Church can't decide what it wants, and he throws over the whole matter; and to the layman things. which are of little or no importance become subjects for wrangling, bitterness, and intolerance.

From a Resident of Illinois

WAS raised in the conventional way in a rural although not benighted community. . . . As I pursued. my education and went to college, . . . I began

questioning many of the statements I heard from the pulpit. . . . They did not stand the test that we apply to other assertions when we are seeking the truth. ... I wondered how many broad-gauged clergymen really believed what they were preaching. . . .

People to-day are not content to take for granted the old doctrines and ten

The wonderful example of Christ to me is due to the fact that he was human and divine just as all of us. He showed us what could be accomplished if the divine laws were followed. He understood these laws and how to apply them to daily life. In our effort to link up Jesus with God in a supernatural way we have inferred that there is necessary some intercessor or medium. We do not know how to make the direct contact, as Jesus did. . . .

What we need, it seems to me, are clergymen who are able to tear loose the trappings, cast aside the archaic garments, and show us a logical, defensible, scientific religion that will give us practical help. . . . We must not leave all to the ministers. . . . We must get back to the simple, primitive, all-powerful religion as taught by the Christ and divest it of its unbelievable and grotesque mysteries.

in three different schools. What I took away from those schools was of course something vastly different from what the learned faculty intended to give.

The scholar-clergyman is not so often the real success in the position of a real practical leader of the people's religion. He is too often too far removed from the thoughts and lives of the people. I have in mind some great names of leaders for illustration. Whenever there is a gap between the leader and the people religion so far fails. . . . If religious leadership leaves the people too far behind, it surely fails to be of very practical help to those people. And this is what has happened and is happening in churches everywhere. There is often lit

tle, if any, connection between the religion of the leader and the daily religion of the people. If all the clergymen who pass through the theological schools really attained the standard desired by the schools, they would every one, to my mind, be liable to be misfits in the practical administering of the people's religion. That any of us succeed is because some do not entirely lose, in the process of education, the common touch. And our success is possibly dependent exactly upon the degree of our retention of that intangible something which the schools do not give. . . .

I would have the doors of the schools open wider to admit men who are not necessarily scholars but who seem to

have a genuine interest and love for the religious well-being of mankind. . . Make scholars of them if they can, but, if they cannot, then judge them by their sincerity of purpose and their consecration to their calling, and trust that the contacts of the school will be beneficial to both the scholars and the nonscholars, and that both together will work for the true advancement of religion. . . . The over-specialized clergyman has ruined many a church and popular religion has suffered because the leadership has been often out of balance. If we continue along present lines, what currently passes for religion will be the special interest of the very few, and not the universal concern of the many.

"W

E ask that the nations shall not grow effete by devoting themselves to cultivating

little olive trees.

"Peace speeches are all very well for the sons of France, England, and America.

"But we wish to teach our children the use of arms, even before they learn to speak. And when we speak of peace, we will always add the adjective 'Roman,' as it is the only kind of peace to be accepted and pursued when we name the name of Italy and belong to the generation of Vittorio Veneto and Mussolini.

"To make friends for Italy-that is the motto of a weakling. Our motto, on the contrary, is to strengthen the state. Italy does not go begging for friends; she inspires respect, and, if need be, fear."

So much for present-day, Fascist opinion, as expressed by the Roman "Tevere." This journal, taking its name from the Tiber, has been often regarded as the Roman mouthpiece of Benito Mussolini, when he does not choose to use the "Popolo d'Italia," the paper he founded, which is now directed by his brother Arnaldo.

The Outlook's Editor in Europe

Benito Mussolini

Minister of Justice and with no means of defense. As to independent action, therefore, most judges appear impotent and the public prosecutors mere puppets.

Fascism's moral as well as material value rests the rather on legislative achievement. achievement. In this respect Fascism has, in the main, deserved well of Italy.

For instance, it has brought about, what Italy never had before, a disciplined, efficient, and economical government service, ridding the state of many

supernumeraries and saving an immense amount to the taxpayer.

It has given new impetus to education, despite the croakings of the devotees of the old methods.

It has practically delivered the country from the incubus of debt, has balanced the Budget, stabilized the lira, induced a railway surplus of earnings superseding the dreary list of deficits, raised the country's commercial credit to an unprecedented height, and has successfully drawn upon foreign funds for Italian industrial upbuilding.

It has obtained for Italy a foremost place in the settlement of labor conflicts. It is yet too early to foretell what will occur under the new laws, but it may be said that rarely has any government proceeded with so much regard for order as the inevitable accompaniment of the settlement of labor troubles.

In other respects also the Fascist legislative program has been impressive. All the greater pity, then, that it should have been darkened by arrogant, oppressive, and violent laws, destructive of liberty, as we note in the interferences with freedom as enjoyed by associations, communes, and the press.

On the material side Italy is provided with militant means to carry out what Parliament or the judiciary decides. There are besides the policemen and police officers (including the Carabinieri), the customs guards, the army and navy, the powerful Voluntary Militia for National Security, and no one not a Fascist may join it; yet it is armed, equipped, and financed by the taxpayers.

The Fascist forces are the Militi, who are in uniform, and the Squadristi, who are not, but who are allowed to carry revolvers even when off duty.

Signor Mussolini, the Fascist leader, now proposes to kick over the traces and bluntly to declare a Roman Empire.

When we use the expression "the Roman Empire," we instinctively think of the farthest confines of that Empire. They were widespread. Italy's colonial confines include some African possessions, and she is trying to Italianize the Greek islands of the Dodecanese. The idea of proclaiming an empire over the total collection of Italian territory hardly strikes one as being confirmed by the deed.

The various spokesmen for Mussolini are busy protesting that their leader is not a megalomaniac and does not mean the old Roman Empire. He doubtless means something more like the recent French Empire under Napoleon III or the German Empire constituted by Bismarck. In any case, like the German statesman, the Fascist chief proposes that Italy shall have her place in the

sun.

Now, what neither Napoleon nor Bis

marck had, Mussolini has a background. By a simple twist of the wrist -that is to say, by a happy Latin word -Mussolini always gains the ear of a crowd which knows not the Latin language! There is a certain flattery in being reminded of your ancestors even if you cannot speak their language.

The Italians' Roman ancestors come to mind every time a Fascist uses the Roman salute, now the official salute, the broad raising of the right arm to the side. Every Fascist, from the Duce down to little children in the Balilla, is as proud as possible of this.

The Roman salute, though highly desirable in maintaining Fascist enthusiasm, was, however, not really necessary. "Scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tartar." The same might be translated in this country: "Scratch an Italian and you'll find a Roman." This was true long before Mussolini's day. No Italian writers on affairs have been oblivious of the Roman background. Indeed, it would be passing strange if they had been.

All the more, then, people began to take notice when Mussolini came along. Instead of talking academically about "Old Rome and New Italy," he stirred men's memories by commencing to transform Old Italy into a sort of New Rome. Prepared as people were, Fascism, at first, seemed a queer turnabout. Even now many Italians are still unaccustomed

to it, including the thousands of opportunist Fascists always ready to line up on the winning side.

FR

ROM the very beginning Fascism's course with regard to a Roman origin has been entirely consistent. Its very name recalls the fasces, or bundle of rods surrounding an ax, borne as symbol of authority before the Roman lictors. Then there is Mussolini's application to the various Fascist divisions of Roman names-Legiones, for example.

Italy is now Fascist. There is no mistake about it, even if you may think she will not stay so. Again, Italy has been expanding since Fascism has been at work, not only in home, but in foreign affairs. She may go too far, as in the Corfu case, but, in general, her Fascist

foreign policy has been crowned with success; as, for instance, with Jugoslavia in the Fiume matter, with Switzerland in arbitration, and with England in standing alongside on the Rhine. One must. be wary nevertheless in regard to the future. Far from reassuring is the petulant tone towards France allowed to the now practically muzzled press, with its uniform and monotonous laudation towards Fascism in general and Mussolini in particular.

Under any circumstances, however, opines Mussolini, Fascist Italy is now the worthy descendant of Roman glory; hence "Roman Empire" fits present conditions better than does "Kingdom of Italy."

The leader chose the first of January and the inauguration of the new Governor of the capital as the proper time and occasion for an announcement concerning founding "a third Rome." Remarking that he would speak "in Roman style," he called attention to the actual new aspect of the Eternal City as follows:

Its growth towards the salubrious mountains and towards the reconsecrated sea; the new streets, and the increase in the means of transit; the betterment of all public services; schools, parks, and gardens; sanitary aid and hygienic organizations for the protection of public health; the excavations of new fora, like that of Augustus, and recently excavated temples, like that of Fortuna Virilis.

This "Romanity" will proceed apace. My ideas are clear; my orders precise. There will be, I am absolutely certain, a concrete reality. In five years to all the nations Rome should appear marvelous, vast, ordered, powerful, as at the time of the Augustan Empire. You will create spaces about the Augusteum, the theater of Marcellus, the Capitol, the Pantheon; ... from the Piazza Colonna [the center

of the city] at the end of a great avenue the Pantheon will be visible. You will equally free the majestic churches of Christian Rome from parasitic and profane buildings. The "Third Rome" will extend itself over other than the original] hills and along the shores of the Tiber.

For this great work the time is remarkably favorable. For three years Rome has been really the capital of Italy. The municipalities have disappeared.

So much for a fling at communal autonomy and this in a country with such communal traditions! Yet so much for a

city evoking ideas of imperial grandeur and the symbol of empire as does no other.

IT may or may not be significant that

on this New Year's Day, instead of the Cabinet and members of the Order of the Annunziata at the Quirinal, one Minister only presented himself, the Premier.

With a touch of the melodramatic, common in Italy, but also with a truly Roman and praiseworthy discipline, the Premier not only has concentrated in himself all parts of government, but personally reaches to every department of life.

His success has been prodigious; no one should grudge him it. But this does not mean that Italy can be made an empire, even by vain decree.

No matter what the form of government, the difficulty in the way is that Mussolini has built up a one-man affair. All power, legislative and judicial, as well as executive, is really within his hands alone. Italy's fate lies in his thought, will, and power.

Any worthy Government should be continued. The Fascist faults of oppression and abhorrence of any opposition may suggest a possibly uneasy conscience concerning some things and the desirability of the colonial distractions of an empire to divert attention from them. At present, however, despite dreadful drawbacks, most Italians favor continuing the efficient Fascist dictatorship.

Who but Mussolini could carry it on? Yet he must disappear one day. And that day may be near.

He is believed to have asked-doubtless thinking of old Rome-a triumvirate to succeed him. Two of the three men chosen would, it is supposed, erelong destroy each other-Farinacci and Federzoni. The third, General Badoglio, would be a balance between the two.

Badoglio's position would hardly be enviable even if, like one of the members of a long-ago triumvirate, he absorbed. the other two and governed alone.

Florence, January 12, 1926.

S

Self-Surrender

By DON C. SEITZ

time

OME one has observed with considerable, if not perfect, pertinency that fortresses are not taken their

garrisons surrender. The individuality

and independence of the press have not been taken from it-they have been given away.

I have already alluded to the blighting effect of syndicalism upon the talent employed in creating the feature and editorial departments. It is now in order to explain the degeneration of the newsgathering instinct.

One can understand how, in days of poverty, the press might have combined to cheapen the news hunt, as the "World," the "Times," the "Tribune," the "Herald," the "Mail," the "Journal of Commerce," and the "Sun" did in forming the original Associated Press, which sold the results of its energies to other journals throughout the land, and which now serves upward of one thousand. Some such general source is necessary to carry the freight, so to speak, of journalism. But to this has been added numerous other co-operative sources, some arising through the efforts of the A. P. to maintain a monopoly among its members, but others selfcreated by newspapers themselves in further diminishment of individuality.

Richer than they ever dreamed of being, newspapers spend money on these space-fillers that might be better employed in individual effort. Instead, this has almost ceased, save as the paper itself syndicates the products of its bureaus, adding to the warmed-over flavor of its customers' columns. These aim to sew up events in their own interest rather than to lead by energetic effort. Amundsen's futile flight toward the Pole is an illustration in point. Out of this system comes usually the "made" story instead of news.

abroad, but no outstanding scoops or important facts. It would be possible to retire on the tolls paid for speculation

press. Next

what was printed. This loss of confidence has not been restored.

He

debts due America, or of what Lloyd George or the German Crown Prince were likely to do next. The possibility that George Harvey might cease to represent this anxious Republic in London meant a small fortune in cables. finally made good by quitting-so did the other George. William of Doorn also furnished a fertile field for highpriced guesses. Not one word in one hundred that comes by cable is worth the seven and one-half cents it costs. The ends of the earth have been brought too near to be interesting. Meanwhile the editors look across the sea, and note little or nothing next door.

That the Great War was responsible for this there is no doubt. Under the censorship, self-influenced as it was, it became easy to be lazy, and afterwards, the papers becoming fat, lèse energy continued. Looking backward, it must be confessed that there never was a more shameful surrender of editorial duty than the complaisant bowing to the will of Woodrow Wilson. So far as the Great War was concerned, it was fought in the dark. The exploits of the Y. W. C. A. and the doughnut friers of the Salvation Army got more room in the American newspapers than the heroes who fought, bled, and died. The excuse that military and naval movements had to be withheld from the enemy is to laugh. There was a good deal more merit in cabling the German press the full story of our gigantic doings than in pussyfooting millions of men across the sea. Germans were unconvinced, until the battle-lines met, that the U. S. A. could do anything. We were a joke to the profound Teutonic mind, and insisted on being so regarded.

Worse than this, the practice led to laches on the part of the press. The papers were content to be fed by George Creel with silly stuff from a Government press agency. Their readers were kept as ignorant as the enemy was presumed to be, with great harm to newspaper repute and loss of public confidence in

where the garrison has filed out of the fortress. Some years before the war, in going about a good deal to college and social study affairs, I was surprised to discover a growing distrust in the press. Coming as I did from an establishment which even its owner did not try to control, I was amazed to find a deep belief that newspapers were in the hands of advertisers; that their opinions were thus modified or corrupted. This, of course, laid the blame at the door of the business office, where I knew it did not belong. It was also unjust to the advertisers, who during my long business connection with the "World" had never made the slightest attempt to control its columns in a venal way, and from whom I had received but two requests to temper news stories, and then in the interest of softening tragedies.

It seemed incredible that there should be such a belief, and I sought, through the machinery of the American Newspaper Publishers' Association, to find its source. With the able assistance of its manager, Mr. Lincoln B. Palmer, we located and published a list of fourteen hundred men and women who made their

living as press agents. "Publicity agents" had become a later and, perhaps, higher-toned appellation. Both birds are of the same feather.

Each newspaper in the membership, which covered, however, only about four hundred of the leading dailies of the country, received copies of this list, and a strong movement began to clean the columns of the insidious matter that had been pouring in, making life easy for the editors, but sapping that of the papers. By the time we were pushed into the war the breed was pretty well extinct, save for the perennials of the theater and circus.

The adoption by the Government of a "publicity" bureau policy, instead of permitting reporters to hunt for news with the devil of competition chasing the hindmost, led to a revival of the whole. noxious brood. They came back like