66

did include them but included also every local stop and start made by coastwise boats. Then when the Englishman finds this out he gives more credence than he should to Germany's assertion that the total tonnage sunk exceeds one million six hundred thousand. The British reports do not give tonnage, but merely number of ships above and below sixteen hundred tons. Thus for the week ending April 22 it was reported that forty ships of over sixteen hundred tons and fifteen under were sunk. This is the heaviest weekly loss reported since the ruthless submarine warfare began in February last. An editorial in the Scientific American" asserts that the danger is cumulative, that Germany may be able to turn out even a thousand submarines in a year by the standardized-part method and, that they could be manned from the now largely idle naval personnel. Sir Edward Carson for the Admiralty admitted in Parliament that the situation was increasingly difficult and that the German submarines put afloat were increasing in number faster than the submarine losses; but he was sure that the increase of cargo-carrying ships now promised by America, the rapid ship building with standardized parts under way in Great Britain, and certain new plans for fighting the submarines, together with intensified food production and food control, would together meet the issue satisfactorily.

The courage and steadfastness of our allies should not make us over-hopeful, but simply determined.

ON THE WAR LINES

The week ending May 2 saw a renewal of the French offensive in the Champagne; gains were made north of Rheims, in the vicinity of Craonne and elsewhere. The British action for the week consisted largely in repulsing German counterattacks. A statement issued by the British headquarters on May 1 declared that the offensive operations in the month of April had yielded 19,343 German prisoners, including 393 officers, 257 large guns, and 697 machine guns and trench mortars. The choice of General Pétain as the French Chief of Staff meets with general approval. His memorable defense of Verdun, his brilliant attacks in Champagne and elsewhere, and his reputation as a cool-headed fighter and a matchless organizer justify the placing in his hands of power which is limited only by the War Council.

The first loss in the actual war by armed American forces was reported in the destruction of the oil-tanker Vacuum. This ship carried an American naval detachment manning an American gun. The exact details of her destruction by a German submarine have been withheld, but it is known that she was torpedoed near the Hebrides Islands on April 18 as she was returning to the United States. Two boats were sunk in lowering; one boat with eighteen survivors was saved. Captain Harris, the commander of the ship, with other survivors, was picked up later, but reported that Lieutenant Thomas, in charge of the naval force, and three of the gun crew were lost. The circumstances of the attack show that there was no attempt by the Germans to save the lives of the crew. It need not be pointed out that this is one more of the lawless and piratical instances of German warfare. The fact that we are now at war with Germany and that the Vacuum was armed for defense is no excuse whatever, in view of the fact that Germany had announced and has carried on ruthless attacks on merchant ships long before she was at war with the United States. On May 2 came the report of the sinking of another American armed ship, the Rockingham.

The appointment of Elihu Root to head an American commission to visit Russia is without exception acknowledged to be an admirable choice. No American is better fitted by experience and intellect to advise wisely the Russians now earnestly struggling to establish self-government. The remainder of the commission has not been appointed as we write. The membership should include men who will obviously have the confidence of Russian Socialists.

UNREST IN GERMANY

So far as may be judged from the meager despatches of May 2 from Germany, the prediction that May Day would see

grave labor trouble in Germany and Austria has not been fulfilled on a large scale. English despatches say that concessions in food allowances have been granted to the German workers, probably as a precautionary measure. It is possible that the announcement from Germany, by way of Holland, that the German Imperial Chancellor was expected soon to broach in some form the question of peace or to state Germany's war aims in the Reichstag may have had a similar motive.

That the labor situation in Germany is serious was shown by the violence of language used by the German Minister of Munitions, General Groener, in his declaration that "there shall be no more strikes," that agitation would not be tolerated, that no one should dare do anything which should be in opposition to the mighty Hindenburg. Moreover, the great strike in Magdeburg, a Prussian fortress and the seat of immense steel works, was an ominous indication of other threatened demonstrations. There are abundant indications in other ways that every nerve is being strained by the Government to steel the people for further military effort and to urge them to endure to the utmost the undoubted suffering, while those who give voice to the growing political discontent are sent to the front whenever possible. Nevertheless, the German Socialist press, and especially Maximilian Harden in his organ "Die Zukunft," have shown astonishing audacity in their criticism of the war and the Imperial responsibility for its conduct.

CHRISTUS

Those who have been in Palestine will recognize a notable accuracy as well as vividness of reproduction in the film now being shown at the Criterion Theater, New York City, in the depiction of the life of Christ. First of all, the scenes laid in the Holy Land and in Egypt give that extraordinary depth of distance characteristic of the stretches of desert in those countries, where the sand seems like the sea and where occasionally the distant horizon is marked by one of those apparently never-ending trains of camels. Second, the more intimate scenes, such as that of the Jordan, where the baptism took place, and the Garden of Gethsemane, are also striking in their accuracy. As to the cities and towns, however, such as Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the makers of the film have had, perforce, to rely on the present appearance of those places.

The depicting of the sacred story is reverent; it includes, however, the fanciful notion of Jesus' possible sojourn in Egypt before his entrance into his ministry. His earlier sojourn there is also made the occasion of a supposed journey as far south as Karnak, where, we learn, the late Lord Kitchener provided several thousand men and camels for the representation of the desert scenes and himself became so interested as to act as director on several occasions.

Some years ago the Italian projectors of the present production spent many months in photographing the places and reproducing the historic occurrences from Bethlehem to Golgotha on the very ground where the greatest drama of human history took place. The projectors had already gained renown by presenting "Quo Vadis," the first very large spectacular film feature. The "Christus" film has been produced in Rome, Paris, and Madrid more than a thousand times. Its production lays the arts of painting and music under tribute. It reproduces certain paintings now classic in the history of art-Fra Angelico's "Annunciation," for instance, Correggio's "Nativity," Raphael's "Transfiguration," Leonardo's "Last Supper," and Rembrandt's Descent from the Cross." The production is also accompanied by a special musical setting, well rendered in New York City by a large orchestra augmented from the members of the Philharmonic and other metropolitan organizations.

66

In the usual motion picture play-such, for example, as "Te Last Days of Pompeii"-there is likely to be a graphic reproduction of faithful study of types, of costumes, of local color and atmosphere, superb effects of lighting, and a well-considered cast. In addition such a drama as "Christus" affects religious emotion and conviction. This was evident at the close of the performance.

Some of the more fastidious spectators, especially those familiar with the Bible, may have felt resentment at the seeming over-elaboration of the explanatory text. Some may have

A TARIFF FOR THE PEOPLE

To get the tariff out of politics and out of the grasp of special interests has been the despair of most Americans, but the persistent dream of a few. At last there are signs that this dream may actually come true. The Sixty-fourth Congress called back to life what was once regarded as dead, a non-partisan Tariff Commission, and the Senate has now confirmed the President's nominations to it.

This is not the first attempt to take the tariff out of politics. President Taft succeeded in getting Congress to create a nonpartisan Tariff Board. With the advent of the Democratic party in power under President Wilson, the expected happened, and the Tariff Board was discontinued. Mr. Wilson, who had opposed the policy of creating commissions, has as President, however, changed his mind. He pushed through Congress the bill creating the Federal Trade Commission, and just before his re-election gave his approval to the creation of a Tariff Commission; and then, after about six months, appointed its members.

A real gain is thus to be recognized in the fact that both parties have now committed themselves to the principle of nonpartisan investigation of tariff problems.

For the chairmanship of this Commission President Wilson has chosen one of the highest American authorities on the tariff-Professor Frank William Taussig, of Harvard. Independent in politics, with, it is generally believed, a strong leaning toward Democratic doctrines, Professor Taussig is one of the leading economists of the world. He is the author not only of books on economics, but specifically of a tariff history of the United States. In respect to knowledge of the subject, Professor Taussig's fitness for this position is obvious and indisputable.

The other members of the Commission are not nearly so well known. The best known of them is William Kent, the donor of a forest of redwoods to the Nation, who, though chosen as a Republican, has been a decidedly strong supporter of the Democratic President; but he is not known for his knowledge of economics or tariff matters. The other members are less widely known. Of the others, Mr. Edward P. Costigan, of Colorado, an unsuccessful Progressive candidate for the Governorship of his State, and Mr. David J. Lewis, of Maryland, formerly a Congressman, have, so far as we know, no more special knowledge of the tariff than Mr. Kent has. The other two members may be called tariff experts. One, Mr. Daniel Calhoun Roper, of South Carolina, as former clerk of the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives, to which all tariff bills are referred, has gained valuable experience in dealing with tariff questions. The other appointee, Mr. William S. Culbertson, of Kansas, is the only one who was connected with the former Tariff Board. He has also been tariff expert for the Senate Finance Committee, and has been special counsel for the Federal Trade Commission. Perhaps this is as good a Commission as the country has a right to expect.

If it is to do what it is charged with doing, its members will have to regard their position as one of great responsibility and as involving arduous labor. In a world where the tariff question is treated with the astuteness of the German Government the United States cannot play at tariff problems and expect to go very far. Heretofore we have allowed the tariff to be treated as a means of providing a general and rather haphazard protection to American industry, supplying a part of the revenues and largely giving special privilege and favors to special interests. Even when it has not been corrupt, the old party tariff system has been thoroughly demoralizing. And the Democrats, although they have preached tariff reform, have not been in principle one whit better than the Republicans. They have log

rolled, and swapped, and played politics with the tariff just as the Republicans have; the only difference is that their districts, sections, industries, rather than those of the Republicans, have profited. With the entry of the Nation into the war, the old partisan disputes over taxes and tariffs should go by the board together with other partisan contentions; and the temper of the country as well as the spirit of the Administration will, we believe, make it a politically penal offense for members of Congress to impede real tariff reform by any process of log-rolling.

THE NEW SPANISH CABINET

The one European country so far removed geographically from the war that she has felt comparatively little effect from the conflict is Spain. Life in the Spanish cities, and certainly in the interior, has gone on much as usual. Until recently there has been little change in conditions of labor, industry, production, finance, and the other branches tested to the limit by the needs in the countries actually at war.

Now, however, conditions have changed. First, there have been labor troubles, and it has been necessary to suspend constitutional guarantees.

Next, the submarine scare has fulfilled its menace; the sinking of the Fulgencio and other boats by the Germans inflamed the Spanish friends of the Allies.

Thirdly, many Latin-American nations sprung from Spain have become anti-German, and two of them-Cuba and Panama-have entered the war by our side. This third influence was the last straw to break the patient back of Count Alvaro de Romanones, the Spanish Prime Minister, who had already twice resigned during the present year, but whom King Alfonso had persuaded to continue in office. Now, however, the Premier announces his resignation as "irrevocable."

In tendering his resignation to the King, Count Romanones called attention to the fact that "Spain is the custodian of the spiritual patrimony of a great race. She aspires to preside over a moral federation of all the nations of our blood, and she will definitely lose this rôle if, at an hour so decisive for the future as the present one, Spain and the races that have issued from her shall seem divided." Spain, when it was less democratic than it is, was gradually expelled, it is true, from. the Western Hemisphere, largely conquered and colonized by her, but sentimentally, linguistically, and economically she still is bound to it. It is not at all unnatural that Count Romanones should speak as he does; indeed, it is to his credit.

The retiring Premier is a friend of the Allies. On April 15 he sent, as Premier, a note to Germany couched in such terms as to make it virtually an ultimatum. But, unfortunately, the Premier could not count upon the fidelity of all his colleagues. As he says in his letter, "the unanimity which was indispensable was not reached by the Cabinet's deliberations on the subject."

Thus even in the Cabinet was to be found some of the German obstruction which has long been carried on in the Court circles, in certain departments of state, and in the army clubs. As to the Court, blood relations with the Hapsburgs certainly brought some sympathy with Austria, and Alfonso's marriage with Queen Victoria's granddaughter and his own pro-Ally position were to a certain extent offset by the large amount of German money which has come into Spain during late years, and especially by the admiration of the army leaders for German military efficiency. Politically, however, the cause of democracy has been growing in Spain, and even the attempt to influence both the Pope and the supposedly powerful Jesuit political party in Spain, seen in the German Government's decision to repeal the law forbidding Germany to the Jesuits, did not attain its object.

The recent statesmen of Spain have been liberals rather than conservatives. Señor Dato, who had conducted a Liberal Ministry with clever hand, resigned in December, 1915, and was succeeded by Count Romanones, who, although a Liberal of another stamp, has also known how to steer the ship of state with wisdom. Yet these Ministers found that their proposals for military preparedness were delayed in the military committees of the Cortés, or Parliament, and even the King, having ordered reviews

and maneuvers, would not infrequently find some obstacle placed in the way of their being carried out, so powerful was the German influence.

Will that influence continue? Hardly, if Marquis Garcia Prieto, President of the Senate, the new Premier, recognizes the immediate duty before him, the duty of one who, in the words of the retiring Premier, "honorably follows Liberal currents and is willing nobly to support the responsibilities of democratic government."

I

T was a warm September day in the foothills of the Adirondacks. Over a back country road that wound through rocky pastures and wooded slopes a battalion of Plattsburg rookies were fighting a rear-guard action against a troop of pursuing cavalry. The morning had been spent in a series of deployments and withdrawals. And dinner and camp were, like Sheridan at Cedar Creek, still "miles away."

In one of the companies which had fallen out beside the road to permit an officially decimated company to march through to safety there was a rookie whose object in coming to Plattsburg had never been discovered by his fellow-soldiers. He had neither the attitude of mind nor the spirit of a Plattsburg man. Yet it is to be recorded that he paid to General Leonard Wood one of the most convincing tributes that perhaps that soldier has ever received.

66

I have been studyin' the General," he said, between intervals of mopping his brow, "ever since I came to this fool place. I have heard him talk and I have heard you fellows talk about him. Now I always have said that no one ever does anything in this life except for what he can get out of it. So I have been lookin' to see what General Wood is goin' to get out of this preparedness game he has been workin' for so hard. And I sure have been puzzled." There was a pause in his soliloquy, and then he added: "He can't get any more pay, he can't get any more rank. By thunder, I have almost come to the conclusion that he is doin' it for his country!"

A few minutes later the company was on the march, and, coming over a little rise in the road, it found Major-General Leonard Wood, the ranking officer of the United States Army, standing beside a little clump of trees, his searching eyes riveted on the little column marching by at attention.

Those Plattsburg rookies on that back country road were the embodiment of a vision for which Leonard Wood has sacrificed more than this country has yet realized, and a tangible symbol of the unforgetable debt which this slow Nation of ours owes to the courageous and great-visioned officer at the head of its

army.

The service which Leonard Wood has rendered his country is more than that of the trained soldier who points out that our shores are defenseless and our citizenry without adequate weapons. General Wood did this, and at a time when the officer who advocated any real preparedness did so at the risk of official disapproval. But Leonard Wood's service was not limited to the function of the fearless red-tape-cutting soldier. His has been the service of a statesman who not only has the courage to criticise, but also the vision to construct.

While other men were arguing that an increased regular army or a Federalized Guard or a system of volunteer training would suffice, Leonard Wood went up and down the land preaching the democratic principle of universal obligatory training by a process which he himself had proved out by practical experience in the rolling hills and valleys of northern New York. The prophet of a democratic military system, in these later days he has had the proud satisfaction of watching his country turning in the time of its peril towards the ideal which he has so long and so bravely upheld. All the reward which he has asked has been the privilege of serving his country, and less than this reward he has received.

The portrait of General Wood published in our illustrated section and this editorial will reach our readers shortly after General Wood arrives at the post to which he has been now

assigned-the command of the newly created Southeastern Department. As a military post his new command is perhaps the least important to which any soldier of his rank could have been detailed. Despite this fact, in his new post there does remain for General Wood an opportunity of carrying his vision of the American citizen-soldier of the future into a new and fertile field. We believe that the South will give the fullest recognition to this man and his message.

The sons of those who knew at first hand the soldierly ideals of Robert E. Lee should be quick to respond to the appealing vision of Leonard Wood.

WAR AND A FREE PRESS

The bill in Congress putting limits on the liberty of the press during the war has elicited heated protests from certain influential daily papers. We make no attempt to discuss the provisions of the bill because it is still subject to amendment and the questioned provisions may be altered before this number of The Outlook can reach our readers. But the occasion is fitting for a statement of general principles by which both Congress and the country should be guided.

The liberty of the press in a free country differs in no essential respect from other forms of liberty. Democracy assumes the truth of an aphorism attributed to Augustine, "Please to do right, and then do as you please." It assumes that most men please to do right, and it generally leaves them free to do as they please. But the country may define what is right, and may punish the individual or prevent him from doing what is wrong. He has liberty to use his hands as he pleases, but if he uses his fist to knock his neighbor down the law punishes him. He has liberty to use his tongue as he pleases, but if he uses his tongue to slander his neighbor the law punishes him. Liberty and anarchy are not synonyms. The country retains the right to define the limits within which the individual may do as he pleases.

The law of liberty recognizes the rights and interests of the public as well as of the individual. If the orator uses his tongue to incite a mob to ravage, plunder, and burn, or a printer uses his type to furnish obscene prints or obscene literature to schoolboys, the law punishes the offender. The law protects the rights both of the individual and the public against any man who does not please to do right; and the community assumes the authority to define for the individuals in the community what is right.

There is preventive law, as there is preventive medicine. If a man threatens to assault his neighbor, the neighbor does not have to wait until he is assaulted. He may have his would-be assailant arrested and bound over to keep the peace. If a man purposes any act which will work an irreparable injury to his neighbor or to the community, neither the neighbor nor the community has to await the fulfillment of the evil purpose. The court will issue an injunction against the threatened wrong and enforce the prohibition by a summary process.

Apply these simple principles to the liberty of the press. If a newspaper libels the President, the editor should be liable to punishment. An American citizen does not lose his right to the protection accorded to other American citizens because the Nation has made him its President.

If a newspaper incites a mob to violence, or if in time of war it publishes statements the obvious effect and probable purpose of which are to give aid and comfort to the enemy, its editor should be liable to punishment. There is no sacredness in type which makes immune from punishment the men who use it for a criminal purpose.

Preventive law is legitimate in time of war as in time f peace. Whatever information is given by the newspapers to the country is also given to the enemies of the country. The great majority of newspapers will voluntarily refrain from such publication. But one newspaper which does not refrain may inflict on the country an irreparable injury. The country has a right to protect itself against this peril by prohibiting the publication of any information which will do injury to the country or give aid and comfort to its enemies. And it may take such measures as it deems wise for giving to the press and to the public the infor

mation which is consistent with the public interests and may prohibit the publication of information which it regards as perilous to the Nation. Such prohibition is only the application to the newspapers in time of war of a principle long since recognized and acted upon in time of peace.

The saying attributed to Jefferson," Error is dangerless so long as truth is left free to combat it," is true. The press must be left free to give untrammeled expression to public opinion concerning public acts and public policies. It must be left free to criticise or condemn the public utterances and the public acts of the Government and its agents. They are the servants of the people; the master must be left free to criticise his servants. But that does not imply freedom to misreport those acts and utterances, or to asperse the motives of those servants, or to give those facts to the public which public safety requires should not be given to the enemies of the country. It will sometimes be difficult to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate criticism. But honestly patriotic editors will rarely find it difficult to draw that line for themselves; and others must be content, as their fellow-citizens are content, to leave the line between the lawful and unlawful in doubtful cases to be defined for them by the courts.

In one important respect the censorship of the press in democratic countries will always differ from the censorship of the press in autocratic countries. In autocratic countries the few rulers, in democratic countries the people, are to be safeguarded. In autocratic countries the press is prohibited from any utterance which lowers the authority and lessens the power of the autocrat. In democratic countries the press is restrained from any utterance which imperils the liberty and well-being of the people, and is encouraged in every utterance which protects their liberties and promotes their welfare. Free criticism of the rulers of the people is therefore discouraged or prohibited by autocracies; free criticism of the servants of the people is permitted and encouraged in democracies.

Congress ought to protect the right of the Administration to prevent the publication of news which it deems injurious to the public interest; and it ought to protect the right of the public through the press to criticise freely the public acts and public policies of the Administration.

MORE BINDING THAN A TREATY

Prior to the entrance of the United States into the war arguments were offered in Congress and in the press that we should make our war with Germany an affair separate from that in which the Allies are engaged, that we should retain a "free hand." Events have answered that argument. Our cause is the cause of the Allies. Our victory can be achieved only by the Allies' victory. Our safety, our ideals, the principles of our democracy, make it impossible to withhold what the President with great wisdom urged-" the utmost practicable co-operation in counsel and action with the Governments now at war with Germany."

Our interest, our duty, and the force of circumstances alike put us under obligation to join the Allies.

The whole question that remains consists in this: Shall we signify our entrance into partnership with our allies by a formal treaty of alliance?

Those Americans who have felt most keenly the burden of responsibility that is resting on this Nation at this time of the testing of democracy have believed, and still believe, that the American Government could show its good faith to its partners by such an alliance. A treaty would not only make it certain that no peace would be made which would leave the United States to deal with Germany alone, but would be the means of assuring our allies that America would not leave them in the lurch, but would see the thing through.

It is a measure of the trust which our allies have in us as a people that they ask for no such treaty of alliance. These are the words of Mr. Balfour, officially representing the Government of Great Britain-words which we quoted last week, but which bear repeating again and again:

Our confidence in the assistance we are going to get is not based upon such shallow considerations as those which arise out

of formal treaties. No treaty could increase our undoubted confidence in the people of the United States, who, having come into the war, are going to see it through. If anything is certain in this war, that is certain.

It seems impossible that any American with a spark of honor in his breast should make upon that statement the following comment. We suppress the name of the journal that makes it, because we want to make it plain that we are not attacking a person or a newspaper, but a state of mind. This is what this newspaper, in comment on Mr. Balfour's statement, says:

The has so often said that the United States ought to keep a free hand in war that the full assurance of such an attitude is naturally gratifying to us. It will at once remove a certain fear which many in Congress have expressed about the possibility that this country might contract with the Allies hampering obligations.

A free hand!

If a man who makes a promise to pay a debt without a written instrument has a free hand, so has America.

Let those who think so not delude themselves by imagining that they can advocate the exercise of a free hand by America in this war without incurring the odium that rests upon Germany for the breaking of her treaties.

If America wants to be released from any obligation or wishes to limit the obligation she has already incurred, let her make a formal treaty. If not, then let Americans realize that America is under the most solemn of obligations. Her hand is not free. Her promise is more binding than a bond.

OPINIONS ABOUT BILLY SUNDAY

A teacher of history once said that every one of the greatest struggles in history was over a difference of emphasis. This is the root of the difference of opinion concerning Billy Sunday. Those who criticise him emphasize his mannerisms, his slang, his theology, and what seems to them his intolerance. Those, on the other hand, who believe in him, support him, and regard him as an agency of good consider that all these characteristics are secondary. They see in his mannerisms the means to which he resorts in order to reach enormous crowds, as the actor must exaggerate the normal tones of his voice and the normal movements of his hands and body in order to convey his ideas across the footlights. They see in his use of the vernacular the reaction of a man of the people from the meaningless phraseology, the pious platitudes, the patois de Canaan of the pietist, and the effort of such a man of the people to put what he regards as very real experiences into language which the men like him in the street will recognize as real. They see in his theology the workings of a mind not interested primarily in theological dogma, but impatient with a good deal of current hair-splitting, and therefore determined to side-track theological disputes by assuming that a traditional theology is not to be questioned. And they interpret what others call his intolerance as a by-product. of a man who is so very much in earnest and who sees so clearly the evils that come from lack of conviction, the evils of indifference to vital questions of right and wrong, the nerve-cutting effect of the doctrine of the Laodicean, that he does not stop to distinguish between opinions and convictions, and puts all that he says on an equal plane of intensity.

None of these characteristics should be confused with either the essence of religion and morality or the essence of Billy Sunday himself. If some of the Old Testament prophets should come to life again and use in our pulpits to-day the language which they used in the royal courts and the open spaces of ancient Israel and Judah, we should be more scandalized by it than by anything Billy Sunday says. And we forget that Paul used the vernacular Greek and Jesus the vernacular Aramean. And even the theology of the Old Testament and some of the current beliefs recorded in the New Testament would not be wholly acceptable to people who criticise Billy Sunday's theology.

The real test by which to judge what Billy Sunday does is the one set forth in the Sermon on the Mount-" By their fruits ye shall know them." What Billy Sunday has imparted to