because it took from the Executive the right to remove one of the budget officials.

Similar measures have now passed both houses of the present Congress. The chief difference between the Senate and House bills is that the first establishes a Budget Bureau in the Treasury Department, whereas the second, as seems to be more logical, places it directly under the President. But whatever the final decision in the conference between the two houses of Congress, either measure, in our opinion, signifies an enormous advance administratively.

The bills provide that on the first day of each regular session of Congress the President shall furnish information concerning:

(1) Permanent appropriations and expected receipts available for expenditure. (2) An account of the present condition of the Treasury.

(3) Estimates of the necessary expenditures for the Government's support during the ensuing fiscal year.

(4) Statements of the Government's expenditures and receipts during the last fiscal year and the year in progress.

If the estimated receipts, plus the estimated amounts in the Treasury, are less than the estimated expenditures, the President shall recommend new taxes or loans. On the other hand, if the estimated receipts and Treasury amounts are greater than the estimated expenditures, he shall make such recommendations as public interest requires.

A Bureau of the Budget is to be es tablished to co-ordinate and to prepare departmental estimates for Congress and is also to make a special study of the Departments so as to enable the President to determine what changes should be made in their activities.

A General Accounting Office is to be created, independent of the executive departments. The heads are to hold office for seven years and have charge of auditors who are to report on the budget. Such a measure should accomplish three results administratively.

In the first place, all the people will be able quickly to understand the rea sons for necessary economies as well as for necessary expenses.

In the second place, all estimates will be reviewed by an official other than those officials who originally made the estimates.

In the third place, there will be a special and independent proof by audit as to inefficiency, duplication, or waste in departmental activities, a proof conducted by officials free from interference by changing administrations or Congressional majorities.

II

So much for the administrative side. The legislative is also to be blamed for

.1

past extravagance and could be simplified in three ways: By

(1) Ending the practice of making indefinite appropriations.

(2) Authorizing, in one act, all expenditures. The chief difficulty facing this reform arises, we believe, from the Constitutional provision that each Congress shall prescribe rules governing its procedure. Any attempt to provide that all the expenditures should be considered at one and the same time by Congress is effective only during the life of that particular Congress. In order therefore to bring about the consideration of all appropriations in one bill, the House has passed a resolution taking from all the standing committees authority to report appropriation bills, and has vested that authority in the Committee on Appropriations. Hence, when the Budget Bill becomes a law-at a very early date, we hope the budget will come to the Appropriations Committee of this Congress, at least, and be reported to the House as a single bill carrying all appropriations, and will be considered and authorized in the one bill-despite the danger that some technical snag regarding one particular little revenue or one particular little appropriation might hold up an omnibus measure, the immediate passage of which would be demanded by the whole country.

(3) Authorizing expenditures at a time when revenues to meet them are provided. In establishing this reform there is, we are convinced, even greater difficulty in the way, for our expenditures are so large that it will be hardly possible at present to co-ordinate the two subjects, closely related as they are. At the same time, it seems to us, it is not too much to expect that ultimately our whole financial programmethe appropriation of money and the raising of money to meet the appropriation-may be undertaken in one and the same bill. This is the ideal.

As President Harding says: "The budget programme will not do everything. It must not be accounted a fiscal and efficiency panacea. There must still be much and continuing effort to keep expenses down." But a budget, like that here suggested, should clear the atmosphere of many problems of taxation and expenditure.

inaries within its territory and report at its next meeting in 1921, at Des Moines, Iowa, and he asks, Is this investigation necessary? He accompanies this question with a pamphlet which gives quotations from eminent Baptist scholars showing quite evidently that they do not all agree on some important theological questions, especially on the nature and authority of the Bible.

Our answer to his question may be very briefly put.

If this investigation is conducted for the purpose of ascertaining what the schools, colleges, and theological seminaries teach in order to secure uniformity in their teaching, it is certain to be dangerous and may be disastrous to their usefulness. If it is conducted for the purpose of ascertaining how they teach, and for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting in the Baptist ministry the "liberty of prophesying," it may increase the intellectual and spiritual power not only of Baptist churches but of all Protestant churches.

Both the peril and the promise apply especially to the theological seminaries.

There is in certain quarters a notion that the ecclesiastical authorities should determine what is truth, that the theological seminaries should teach what the ecclesiastical authorities prescribe, that the students should receive what the theological seminaries give, and that the preachers should retail to their congregations what they have gathered from the theological seminaries. Wherever this notion has prevailed piety has languished, discussion has been stifled, and intelligence has died.

There is, on the other hand, the faith that every preacher should be able to say, with his Master, "I have come that ye might have life more abundantly;" that he goes to school, college, and seminary, not to get thoughts ready made, but to get power to think for himself and power to inspire his hearers to think for themselves. Mr. Crothers has said that many men do not think because they lack the necessary conveniences. The object of a theological seminary should be to give its students the necessary conveniences for doing their own thinking.

If the effect of this investigation is to make this distinction clear, and to show the Baptist churches which of their theological seminaries are endeavoring to endow their pupils to do their own theological thinking, and which of them, if any, are endeavoring to bestow upon them thoughts ready made which they can deal out to their congregations without thinking, the Committee, even if it should render a divided report, may render the churches a great service.

F

EW men in contemporaneous American political life have had a deeper and more constant feeling for what we are pleased to call Americanism than Franklin K. Lane, exSecretary of the Interior, who died on Wednesday, May 18.

I The facts of his life may be simply stated. He was born in 1864, on Prince Edward Island, Canada, the son of a doctor, but he found his home in California while yet a child, He was a graduate of the University of California in the class of 1886, and during his life received a number of honorary academic degrees. On graduation from college he became a newspaper man; was admitted to the California bar in 1889; was corporation counsel of San Francisco for five years from 1897; was one of the earliest moving spirits in the campaign of reform in California, which resulted in the complete change of the political character of that State; was defeated for Governor of California in 1902 as the reform candidate on the Democratic ticket; was appointed a member of the Inter-State Commerce Commission in December, 1905, by President Roosevelt and held that important office for eight years, the last four months being Chairman; and was chosen by President Wilson as his first Secretary of the Interior, serving in that capacity for seven years. He resigned on March 1, 1920, partly because of the condition of his health, partly because he felt it necessary to practice his profession in order to provide for his family, and partly because conditions in the Cabinet during the last year or two of President Wilson's term were almost intolerably exasperating. He had suffered for some months before his death from angina pectoris, and died from heart disease a few days after he

had apparently recovered from a very serious surgical operation.

Both as Inter-State Commerce Commissioner and as Secretary of the Interior he was one of the most efficient public servants this country has had in recent years, commanding the devotion of his associates and subordinates and the entire respect of those who might naturally be opposed to him on political grounds or grounds of personal business interest.

I made Lane's acquaintance in California in the summer of 1888, when he and I were fellow-reporters on the San Francisco "Chronicle." When I got my place on that paper, I was a complete stranger in San Francisco, having arrived on the Pacific coast only a few weeks earlier. Lane was younger in years, but older in experience, and I shall never forget how he helped me in learning the ropes. I was attracted to him from the first, and, although he was only twenty-four years of age, I was impressed with his maturity, sound judgment, and determination to do good work. Even in those days he displayed the genial and engaging qualities which won him such hosts of friends in after life. But his enjoyment of human companionship, which is only another way of saying he was a good mixer, never let him slight his work or indulge in careless or slipshod methods, which, I think, constitute the one great serious fault of American daily newspapers. In a letter which he wrote to some friends when he was convalescing from the surgical operation he said:

"I have seen death come to men in various ways, some rather novel and Western. I once saw a man hanged, and I have seen several men shot and came very near going out that way myself two

or three times, but always the other fellow aimed poorly. I was being shot at because I was a newspaper man, and I should have been shot at. There must be public concern in what is printed, as well as what is truth, to justify it. That is something that newspapers should get to know in this country."

I do not believe that Franklin Lane was ever shot at because of anything he wrote himself, for, as I look back over the thirty years that have intervened since those early newspaper days, I think it may be said that "public concern" was the animating motive of Lane's career. He believed in America, he believed in the men and women who are making America, and in this sense he had a passion for Americanism. There is a little book, of only a trifle more than a hundred pages, of his addresses. It is entitled "The American Spirit" and is published by the Frederick A. Stokes Company, of New York. Without Pharisaism or cant or pomposity in every one of these addresses he urges the highest kind of American citizenship; the American pioneer, the American soldier, the American painter, sculptor, architect, landscapist, the American engineer, the American physician, the American philanthropist (and by philanthropist he did not mean the millionaire, but the modest woman who bought a Liberty Bond or worked in the Red Cross)-these are Americans who appealed to him.

man or

A few years ago, in the latter part of his work as an Inter-State Commerce Commissioner or in the early part of his incumbency of the Secretaryship of the Interior I forget which-I lunched with him in New York, and afterwards, walking across Madison Square, he told me that he had just been offered a guar

anty of thirty thousand dollars a year with contingent profits to join a wellknown York New law firm, but, although greatly tempted, he had turned the offer down, as there were things which he wanted to complete in his public service. That this decision was a real sacrifice is proved by the fact that it is announced that the estate which he left for his family was little or nothing.

As I think it over, I believe what most appealed to me about Franklin Lane was his genuineness. He was not afraid to express himself. He had sentiment without being a sentimentalist, visions without being a visionary, imagination without being a mere day-dreamer, practical judgment and compromise without being a materialist, passionate patriotism without being a jingo or a race hater. As a fine and cheering specimen of self-revelation there could not be anything better than the letter, already referred to in this article, which he wrote just before his death. I should like to print the whole of it, but space will only permit some extracts. He begins it like one of the epistles in the New Testament:

Franklin K. Lane, who is recuperating from an operation at St. Mary's Hospital in Rochester, Minnesota, to a few friends:

It is Wednesday afternoon and I am now sitting up in bed talking to my good friend Cotter. Until yesterday I did not clearly visualize any one thing in this room, and did not know that it had a window except that there was a place that noise came through, but I did, know that it had a yellow oak door that stared at me with its great big square eye all day and all night.

Last Friday, you see, about ten in the morning I took the step that I should have taken months, yes years, ago. I was stretched on a stiff, hard table, my arms were clamped down and in three-quarters of an hour I had my appendix and my gall bladder removed, which latter was a stone quarry and the former a cesspool. To-day most tentatively I crawled on to a chair and ate my first mouthful of solid food. But four days ago I managed to shave myself and I am regarded as pretty spry.

Then, after commenting on various forms of tragic death which he himself had witnessed, he continued:

But never before have I been called upon to deliberately walk into the Valley of the Shadow and, say what you will, it is a great act.

Here was a path the end of which I could not see. I was not compelled to take it. My very latest doctor advised me against taking it. I could live some time without taking it. It was a bet on the high card with a chance to win, and I took it.

I undressed myself with my boy's help in one of the hospital rooms and then arraying myself in my best suit of pajamas and an antique Samurai robe which I use as a dressing-gown, submitted myself to being given a

dose of dazing opiate which was to do its work in about fifteen minutes. I then mounted a chair and was wheeled along the corridor to the elevator, stopping meantime to say adieu to my dear ones, who would somehow or other insist on saying good-by, which is a different word. I was not to be given the usual anæsthetic because my heart had been cutting up some didoes, so I must take a local anesthetic which was to be administered by a very celebrated Frenchman. I need not tell you that the whole performance was managed with considerable éclat, and Dr. Will Mayo, probably the first surgeon of the world, was to use the knife, and in the gallery looking on were Dr. John Finney of Johns Hopkins, Dr. Billings of Chicago, Dr. Vaughan of the Michigan University, and others. On the whole, it was what the society reporter would call a recherché affair.

For two days I had knowledge that this operation was to take place at this time and my nerves had not been just as good as they should have been. Those men who sleep twelve hours perfectly before being electrocuted have evidently led more tranquil lives than I have, or have less concern as to the future. Ah, now I was to know the great secret! For forty years I had been wondering, wondering. Often I had said to myself that I should summon to my mind when this moment came some words that would be somewhat a synthesis of my philosophy. Socrates said to those who stood by after he had drunk the hemlock, "No evil can befall a good man whether he be alive or dead." I don't know how far from that we have gone in these twentyfour hundred years. The apothegm, however, was not apposite to me because it involved a declaration that I was a good man, and I don't know anyone who has the right to so appreciate himself. And I had come to the conclusion that perhaps the best statement of my creed could be fitted into the words, "I accept," which to me meant that if in the law of nature my individual spirit was to go back into the great Ocean of Spirits, my one duty was to conform. "Lead, Kindly Light" was all the gospel I had. I accepted. I made pretense to put out my hand in submission and lay there.

He then proceeds briefly but graphically to describe what happened in the operating room.

The process there was lightninglike. I was in torture. "Lift me up, lift me up!"

"What for?"

"I have one of those angina pains and I must ease it by getting up and taking some nitro." That had been

my practice, but I did not reason that never before had the pain come on my right side.

"Give him a whiff of ether." The tenderest arms stole around my head and the softest possible voiceUlysses must have heard it long ago "Now do take a deep breath." resisted. I had been told that I would see the performance.

"Please do breathe very deeplyjust one good deep breath."

That pain was burning the side out of me. I tried to get my hand up to my side. Of course it was tied down. I swore, "O Christ! This is ter

rible!"

"It will stop if you will reach for a big breath"-and I resigned myself. Men who are given the third degree have no stronger will than mine. knew I was helpless. I must go through, I must surrender to that Circean voice. I heard the doctor in a commonplace monotone say, "This is an unusual case"-the rest of this sentence I never heard. . . .

I am doing well; cared for well; as happy as can be; have had none of my angina pains since the operation. And as I lie here I contemplate a frieze-a procession of doctors and nurses and internes, of diagnosticians and technicians and experts and mechanics and servitors and cooksall, the great and the small, in profile. They are to look like those who have made their pretenses before me during the past year-the solemn and the stupid, the kindly, the reckless, the offhand, the erudite, the practical, the many men with tubes and the many men with electrical machines. Old Esculapius must begin the procession, but the Man with the Knife, regnant, heroic size, must end it.

What a great thing, what a pride, to have the two men of greatest constructive imagination and courage in surgery in the world as Americans, Dr. Charles and Dr. Will Mayo.

What a letter from a dying man! It is a practical illustration of one of Theodore Roosevelt's finest sayings: "Only those are fit to live who do not fear to die." And at the very end comes out Lane's instinctive pride in welltrained, efficient, sympathetic Americanism.

Ten years before I made Franklin Lane's acquaintance-that is to say, more than forty years ago I made the acquaintance of another delightful American who, by a curious coincidence was to become, like myself, an admirer of Lane, although a much more intimate friend. I speak of Roland Cotton Smith, the rector of St. John's Church, Washington, D. C., the church which has ministered to a long roll of Presidents and statesmen. I first knew Cotton Smith as a crack tennis player in college. I admired and looked up to him for his skill as a tennis player, in which sport I was a mere duffer. I have since come to look up to him and admire him as an appraiser of spiritual values. When Franklin Lane took up his official life in Washington in 1905, he became a member of Cotton Smith's congregation. After Lane's death Cotton Smith, who happened to be in New York, came into my office to talk to me about this devoted American whom we both knew, one at the beginning of his career, the other more intimately at its end. The letter which Lane wrote on his deathbed and from which I have quoted was given to me by Cotton Smith. In it Lane speaks of diagnosticians. If I

The Christ whom you call is in that small light.

So the knight marched on shining in mail,

Dauntless in spirit, he cannot fail, He will find, what he holds, the Holy Grail.

It may be that to some readers the sketch which I have attempted of Franklin Knight Lane will seem too intimate, but on the whole I think I will let it stand as it is. Generally speaking, I do not think that Americans get enough intimate views of the finer side and sweeter qualities of their public men. The turmoil and stress of political life is such that our judgments are more prone to be critical and bitter than friendly and helpful. As the statesmen of my generation pass away, as they are now beginning to do more and more rapidly, the younger men must "carry on," and they ought to have a chance to know something about the inner life of the men of affairs whom they are to follow. That is my only excuse, if excuse is needed, for this kind of personal portrait. LAWRENCE F. ABBOTT.

T

HE increasing independence of Egypt from Turkish authority from the time of the founder of the dynasty of the Khedives, Mohammed Ali, early in the past century, to the revolution of Arabi Pasha in 1882; the occupation of Egypt by the British and the making of modern Egypt under Lord Cromer and his successors from 1882 to 1914; the deposing of the Khedive Abbas II; six years of the "Sultans" Hassain and Fouad, both of them nominated and maintained in office under a British Protectorate and martial lawthese, with the war, have been the factors contributing to the remarkable political awakening which has taken possession of Egypt to-day. No generation in all the days of the Ptolemies, Romans, Saracens, or Mamelukes ever saw such a state of the popular mind or such a desire for participation in the affairs of the nation. For centuries pashas have done what thinking was necessary to control the fellahin of the Nile Valley. To-day from these same peasants the pasha leaders claim and seek their authority.

This week (early in April) the Pasha of the Pashas, Saad Zaghlool, has returned to Cairo. Cabinet Ministers, officials of every grade, delegations of every sort, princes, ladies, the masses and the classes-every one except the Sultan-are vying with one another in welcoming him back. Processions, cheering hosts, banners, thousands of students, immense crowds of rich and poor, high and low, panegyrics, have marked his arrival at Alexandria, his route to Cairo, and from the station to

his home. It has been such a triumphal entry as must have greeted Roman Emperors, but far more popular, more cordial, and more demonstrative.

But who is Saad Pasha Zaghlool? A former student of the Azhar, Islam's greatest university, at Cairo, a Government official rising through successive stages to become a member of the Khedive's Cabinet as Minister of Education, he stepped forward in the fall of 1914 as an advocate of the removal of the British Protectorate and the declaration of independence for Egypt. He and his colleagues insisted upon the application of President Wilson's principle of selfdetermination for small nations, and demanded a representation at the Paris Conference. They were refused permission to go to Paris by the British authorities and suddenly deported to Malta. The nation clamored for their return, which was soon granted. The impression prevailed in the nation's mind (greatly emphasized by the Nationalist leaders) that their return was the result of intimidation of British officials by the popular demonstration. The riots of the spring of 1919 followed. The support of the demand for the withdrawal of England from Egypt increased apace. Saad Pasha and a small delegation of leaders were practically elected by the Egyptian people to proceed to Paris and London to secure what was demanded. It was said that £1,000,000 was collected and placed at the disposal of the delegation. Saad Pasha raised the banner of complete independence for Egypt; he staked everything on this and left no alternative.

In the fall of 1919 a Commission headed by Lord Milner, British Colonial Secretary, proceeded to Egypt to investigate the situation. They were to report to Parliament as to the causes of discontent and the possible solution of the questions involved.

T

leaders of the Nationalists rendered it almost impossible for the Commission to have any contact with the Egyptian people. They proclaimed a boycott, not only of the Commission, but of any who would confer with its members, on the ground that England had no right to send such an investigating Commission or to legislate concerning a sovereign state, as they claimed Egypt

was.

Meanwhile the Commission secured its data and returned to London in the spring of 1920. Not long afterward Saad Pasha and the delegation were invited to London for conference with the Commission. Not a little difficulty had to be surmounted in order to accomplish this, the British maintaining that the delegation did not officially represent the Egyptian Government and the delegation insisting that it did. Moreover, the British maintained that whatever arrangement might be made must safeguard England's interest in Egypt, and that England was responsible to the Powers of Europe for the protection of their subjects and investments in Egypt. Saad Pasha, as has been said, stood squarely on the platform of entire independence.

In September, 1920, the Milner Commission proposed as a basis of negotiation a scheme whereby the Capitulations