his producing capacity is known to be. Individual miners, it is said, frankly state their desire to do more work, but are deterred by fines and other disciplinary measures which reduced their net pay for twelve cars below what the pay for six would be.

The unions demand, according to the statement, that the companies collect fines for overproduction, and when a company refuses a strike is threatened. Breakers cannot operate steadily, it is said, because the output is not sufficient to keep them constantly employed; but the unions, which have made continuous breaker operation impossible, threaten to strike to force continuous operation. The economic loss from these alleged practices is said to add greatly to the cost of production, and therefore to the price of coal.

All this would be impossible if there were not at least forty per cent more coal mines in operation than are needed.

PUTTING THE BRAKES ON CREDIT

T

WICE within two weeks bankers

have been urged from high places to be cautious about further extensions of credit.

The latest warning comes from Secretary of Commerce Hoover, who sees danger in our $3,000,000,000 gold reserve. The former came from the Federal Reserve Board, which sees the same danger from a different anglethe extension of credit by banks almost to a level with the 1920 boom total even before any draft has been made on the tremendous reserves in the Federal Reserve banks.

If, with returning prosperity, the United States uses anything like the whole of its basis for credit, the greatest era of inflation and speculation in our history will follow.. So predict both Secretary Hoover and the Federal Reserve Board; but both are reassuring, for they point out that the recent increase in business is, so far, sound, because the goods produced with the money borrowed have not piled up, but have been bought and consumed. Both express confidence that the sound judgment of American bankers will curb the tendency to inflation before it spreads too far.

Secretary Hoover's statements were made in an address in New York City before the United States Chamber of Commerce, those of the Federal Reserve Board in one of its periodical reports. There is no alarmist note in either of them, but there is in both of

P. & A. Photos
JULIUS H. BARNES, RE-ELECTED PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COM-
MERCE, ADDRESSING THE U. S. CHAMBER

OF COMMERCE CONVENTION

them the timely warning that prosperity is not evenly distributed, that business recovery has been complete in the industrial centers and only partial in the agricultural sections. The demands for currency and credit are therefore greatest in the industrial centers, and, if the unwise policy warned against should result in a crash, it is the industrial centers that would be probably hit hardest. In nearly every particular the present situation reverses that which ended in the crash of the autumn of 1920.

Secretary Hoover warns that certain European countries which he does not name are expecting us to do the exact thing which he is trying to point the way around. They believe, he says, that the United States will use its gold as a basis for inflated credits which will result in sky-high prices, the piling up of goods that cannot be consumed, and a rush of gold from under our castle of credit back to the countries of Europe. He hopes a large part of this gold will go back to Europe, but he wants it to go in an orderly way through the normal channels of trade.

The way to make certain of this, both statements point out, is not to extend credit beyond the actual producing needs of industry and business.

the note as reported seems to show on the whole a desire for moderation and conference between the two nations, although the phrasing is marked by petulance.

The dispute between the two Governments arises from several causes.

The incident of the seizure of British fishing vessels, or trawlers, brought matters to a point where Trotsky in Russia allowed himself to talk valiantly of Russia's power to fight her enemies; and the radical labor element in England began an agitation based on the slogan, "Stop the war." This is not the first time that British warships have been sent to sea because of the seizure of English trawlers in Russian waters. It is a basic principle of England to protect her fishing vessels, and especially so now because of the splendid service done by the trawlers in fishing for mines during the war. Russia's reply to England's remonstrance is that she considers that she has the right to fix the sea territorial limit at twelve miles. It is true that the old threemile limit has become illogical, because it was established as representing the distance to which gun fire could carry, and it no longer corresponds to that idea. But any change should certainly be of an international character and with international consent.

Back of this immediate cause of quarrel has been the growth of feeling in England that the trade agreement with Russia was a hollow mockery, because Russia had little to offer in the way of trade; and back of that again is the English feeling that Russia was becoming boastful and even bellicose in her attempts to push Bolshevism and its influence in the East, and that British interests were thereby in danger.

Lord Curzon's note was certainly positive and aggressive. It has been thus summarized in press despatches:

Britain demands the cessation of propaganda and hostile acts toward that country and its nationals. It calls for the admission of liability by the Soviet Government for the seizure of British ships and compensation for injuries inflicted on British subjects. It demands the unequivocal withdrawal of two communications signed by the Soviet official, Weinstein, regarding religious persecution, which followed Great Britain's attempt to intervene in favor of the ecclesiastics on trial.

One phrase used in the note may be quoted to represent the tone of the whole: "It is time the Soviet Government should be made aware that it cannot with impunity behave toward

British subjects and British shipping in this arbitrary and intolerable manner."

The Soviet reply to Lord Curzon is mildly conciliatory; it disavows responsibility for some of the British charges, declares that it desires friendly relations with Great Britain, and, while it protests against "ultimatums and threats" and the "sharp and unjustified hostility of the British note," declares also that the way to satisfactory relations is through understanding to be reached by conference and negotiations.

VENGEANCE, NOT POLITICS

HE attempt at Moscow to make

Tpolitical capital out of the assas

sination at Lausanne on May 10 of the Bolshevik envoy Vaslaf Vorowsky has no reasonable basis. Vorowsky was an envoy only in the sense that he was sent to Lausanne by the Soviet Government; representation from Russia at the Lausanne conference was not desired by the Allies in view of Russian interference and mischiefmaking at the first conference. Vorowsky was not officially recognized by the Allies and he was entitled only to such protection as was due from the Swiss Government to every alien. Neither is there basis for the Russian accusation that the Swiss Fascisti were morally responsible for the murder. It is true that the Fascisti vigorously opposed the spread of Communist doctrine in their democracy by Vorowsky and others, and it may be the fact that they urged the Swiss Government to expel Vorowsky, but that is a long way from incitement to murder. Most absurd of all is the assertion of Radek, an undiplomatic diplomat of the Reds, that "Vorowsky's death is England's bloody answer to Moscow's stand as to the future of the Dardanelles."

There is no reason to doubt the assertion of the assassin, a former Czarist officer, by name Maurice Conradi, that the act was intended as a deed of vengeance for the torture and murder of his uncle and brother by the Bolsheviki during the worst of the Terror in Russia. That the violence of savage oppression engenders the violence of lawless revenge is no uncommon occurrence in history.

Patriarch. Meanwhile the proposed trial of Dr. Tikhon by the Soviet Government has been indefinitely postponed. Evidently the Red political leaders have been led by the worldwide condemnation of the execution of Monseigneur Butchkavitch to shift the burden of responsibility for persecution from State to Church.

What the tone and temper of the men who have controlled this Assembly is may be indicated by the fact that its President made a three-hour speech devoted to praise of the Bolshevik rulers and their Government. According to cabled reports, he said that "the Soviet was the finest government in the world, and voiced his admiration of its fight against capitalism, which he termed one of the seven deadly sins." deadly sins." A press correspondent in Riga affirms: "The same Government that shoots priests has created a church of its own." The clergy who made up this Assembly may in part honestly represent a reaction against orthodoxy; they call their organization the Living Church and claim that it is reformist in purpose. But there is evidence that largely their desire is to get along comfortably with the Reds. Conciliation appeals more to them than support of their persecuted fellow-priests. Mr. Francis McCullagh, in one of his illuminating articles in the New York "Herald," says: "More than a thousand Russian priests have been executed in the last five years. A news despatch from Riga said some five thousand priests are at the present time imprisoned in various parts of Russia." If it is true, as the Assembly asserts, that Dr. Tikhon refused to give up altar utensils and church funds on the demand of the Soviet Government, the offense would seem to be civil rather than ecclesiastical in its nature; but this Assembly seems to have been concerned more about the authority of the State than the privilege of the Church, and it had in equal prominence on its wall pictures of Christ and Lenine. Bishop Blake, of the American Methodist Episcopal Church of Southern Europe, has startled many American Methodists by his remarks before this Assembly, as reported by the Associated Press, such as: "Revolutions and upheavals are not born of death. They just show new life, and our hearts should be filled with gladness. ... The Church cannot stop new movements, but must join them." The leader of this Living Church, it is said, in a sort of caucus preliminary to the Assem

bly, voted to approve the Red Army and all of the Communist Party programme with the one exception of that clause which advocates anti-religious propaganda. Even a Bolshevik State Church, it seems, does shy off at the proposal to preach atheism!

CHINA REMONSTRATES GENTLY WITH ITS BRIGANDS

F

NOURTEEN men and one woman of non-Chinese nationality of those who were seized by Chinese bandits in their recent attack on a railway train were on May 15 still in captivity. It was announced, however, by Associated Press despatches from China that the Peking Government had reached terms with the bandits under which the troops would be withdrawn and the bandits later would be enrolled in the national army.

This last clause almost has a Gilbert and Sullivan touch of extravaganza. If it is true, China will kill the fatted calf for its returned brigand sons by giving them the pay and the honorable position of soldiers intrusted with the keeping of peace and order. The offer is explicable, however, when we take into account the fact that most of the bandits are former soldiers who were discharged with their pay still in

arrears.

There is no attempt on foot to rescue the captives by the use of foreign troops. The Chinese authorities are afraid to attack the bandits lest the prisoners be killed. Apparently, the only chance for their restoration to their friends lies in bribing the brigands either by money or by re-establishment in the military ranks.

Meanwhile the foreigners have been in a perilous condition. A note that came through the lines from one of them, Major Pinger, of the American Army, said: "If the troops are not withdrawn within three days we are threatened with the worst. Delay is extremely dangerous." It is now known that at least one woman is among those still held-Mrs. Verea, a Mexican, who would not desert her husband when offered freedom. The American prisoners held, according to the reports current as we write, are: J. B. Powell, editor of the "Weekly Review," Shanghai; Leon Friedman, of the China Motors Corporation, Shanghai; Lee Solomon, of Shanghai; and Majors Robert Allen and Roland Pinger.

A strong light is cast on the cause of brigandage in China in an article in the New York "Herald" by Major Rodjenko, formerly a military instruc

tor in the Chinese army. He declares that "the Chinese bandit is about the most good-natured brigand in the world, for he robs not for the sake of easy money or an easy living, but to save himself from starvation. Hence he is a modest chap who knows when he has enough and who turns respectable as soon as he can afford it"-all of which again makes us think of Gilbert and Sullivan's polite pirates. Major Rodjenko describes the military-bandit situation as follows:

There is hardly a single military unit in China which receives its pay regularly. The troops often are in arrears for months before they receive a fraction of their pay. Yet they have to live, and very often they desert, shed their uniforms, and begin a career of robbery. Quite frequently the Government disbands military units at short notice and makes no provision whatsoever for the men, who generally turn bandit. They are encouraged to do so, for they know there are few reliable troops who can be sent against them.

It is not surprising to learn that

under this condition respect for national or provincial government is at low ebb. The two theories, one that the recent outrage is due indirectly to Japanese intrigue, the other that it is due to the political involutions of the Chinese themselves, seem not needed as explanations, whatever semblance of actuality may be in them.

GUILTY HIGHER UP

TH

HE severity of the sentence imposed upon the active head of the Krupp Iron Works was justified by the offense. The theory that German workers were offering only "passive resistance" to the occupation of the Ruhr industrial center was fully disproved by the recent trial. What Dr. Krupp von Bohlen was convicted and sentenced for was the reverse of passive resistance. He encouraged, if he did not instigate, his workmen to attack French soldiers who were under orders to visit the works in order to take possession of certain automobiles. Thereupon the sirens of the plant

were blown continuously, with the full knowledge of the managers and offi-. cers of the company; the workmen were thus gathered together for the direct purpose of attacking the French soldiers; and in point of fact, the mob violence resulted in fourteen deaths.

Dr. von Bohlen and three of his directors were sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years each, and smaller terms of imprisonment were imposed on others responsible, while finally a verdict of death was found against one of the men who committed actual murder. Fines amounting to 850,000,000 marks were imposed upon the defendants individually or collectively.

The incident is a stern warning that France will not act weakly or indecisively in carrying out her announced purpose to hold the Ruhr region until Germany ceases resistance and begins paying reparations in accord with acceptable terms, and provides guaranties for French security.

THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF TO HIS FRIENDS

I

N taking the position for over forty years held by my father, Lyman Abbott, as Editor-in-Chief, I find in fact no substantial difference in my duties, and I contemplate no change in the editorial policy or in the essential character of The Outlook. I find, however, a new sense of obligation to the many thousands who by their words and by their continued support have shown their faith in the survival of my father's spirit. If we who have been carrying on The Outlook did not share that faith with them, The Outlook would not have maintained, and even enlarged, as it has, its circle of readers.

When I say, however, that I contemplate no change in the policy or character of The Outlook, I do not mean that I expect it to stand still. On the contrary, if there has been anything distinctive in its policy or character it has been its continuing progress. The change in outward appearance which takes place with the publication of this number is the eighth change of the kind in this journal's history. In each case the change in form has been in response to some new opportunity for a better service of its readers. Never was my father so young as he was in the last year of his life; and correspondingly The Outlook has never found itself so sympathetic with the spirit of youth as it.is now when it has passed its first half-century. In its experience it has the advantage of age, but it has also the advantage of youth in its confidence in the future.

an

One reason why The Outlook has this composite of youth and age is that The Outlook has a composite mind. Its policy is not, never has been, and while I have editorial direction never will be, merely the policy of one man. It has been the policy of a staff. Each week the editorial board meets in conference. The members of the board rarely agree in every particular, and sometimes vigorously disagree. Out of the argument usually comes opinion which was not the view of any individual at first, but is the product of the views of all. For more than a generation my father, presiding at these conferences, directed the growth of The Outlook's policies. He never sought to impose a policy on The Outlook; but rather developed in The Outlook's composite mind by means of these weekly discussions an agreement on certain fundamental principles. It is these principles that form the warp

on which the weft of each week's editorial pages has been woven. The new President of The Outlook Company, Mr. Pulsifer, has been for years a member of the editorial board, and shares with his editorial colleagues the inheritance of the methods and ideals that have made The Outlook. As the years passed my father left the conference more and more in the hands of my brother, who now becomes Contributing Editor, and myself; and during the later years of his life devoted himself mainly to his writing, with only occasional visits to the editorial conference.

When therefore the time came for him to lay down his work and take his last journey, there was no abrupt transition; and there is no abrupt transition now.

ERNEST HAMLIN ABBOTT.

The explorer's remark was only a slight exaggeration of the actual truth. When we speak of this twentieth century in tones which suggest that we regard our present age as an even level of high civilization, we ignore the fact that the development of the human race is as uneven as the topography of the earth. There were twentieth-century minds or better in ancient Greece. There are firstcentury minds or worse in modern New York.

And these ancient survivals find their wants recognized even in the columns of twentieth-century journals. We picked up a copy of no less a metropolitan daily than the New York "Evening World" and discovered in it two full columns devoted to one of the most ancient of pagan superstitions. These columns were given over to advice for love-lorn individuals based upon their horoscopes. Here are a few sample passages:

VIOLANTE-June 8, 1898, Woman; May 20, 1880, Man.

You are selecting a man who possesses to a high degree the settled and rather stolid nature of the sign Taurus. Inasmuch as he is so much older than yourself, it would be necessary for you to submit your ideals and tastes to his decisions,

because you will be unable to influence him very greatly. If the interests of both lie along the same lines, there is no reason why the above verdict would be unfavorable, but five years from the present time seems a more likely year to produce a marriage for you than does 1923.

T. O. J.-October 24, 1899, Woman; May 26, 1900, Man.

Marriage about the time of your birthday in the fall seems to be the indication in your horoscope. The man whose date you inclose is a congenial person, but do not let him speculate, as he will lose very heavily, through such ventures.

R. T.-Feb. 19, 1906, Woman; Aug. 19, 1905, Man.

This is not the man you are going to marry, and I do not see how you ever get along now, as there are some very quarrelsome influences between your two horoscopes.

Now if the "World's" astrologer would only advise each of those who apply to her for advice to refrain from marriage she might strike a powerful blow for eugenics; for if the advice were followed would it not prevent many low-grade mentalities from passing on their traits to the next generation? Is the newspaper editor who permits such columns in his journal to be wholly excused from blame or should no limits be set to the capitalization of ignorance?

I

PROHIBITION

'N last week's Outlook we published two articles on prohibition, one criticising the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act, and one urging obedience to them. In view of these articles, we desire here again to restate our own position briefly.

The Outlook was not in favor of the passage of a mandatory Constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of alcoholic beverages. It desired to see a permissive amendment passed, under which Federal legislation could be enacted prohibiting the abuse, and possibly the use, of alcoholic beverages. We did not at the time of the passage of the Amendment and we do not now think that the Constitution is a document into which statutory law should be introduced. The Constitution is generally, and always should be, a statement of general principles of law under which statutes may be created. It is quite possible, as the advocates of the Amendment claim, that a mere permissive amendment would have accomplished nothing, and that the mandatory form of amendment was the only kind that would finally do away with the social and