lipoli, or, landing at some Turkish port, say Enos, march overland to Constantinople.

In either event, Italy's entrance into the Turkish campaign will mean a good deal more than the addition of one hundred and fifty thousand men, or of so many ships. Let it not be forgotten that, after many months of preparation, the military and naval forces of Italy are in a state of signal efficiency.

But in addition to this there is a moral as well as a material value. The entrance of Italy must powerfully affect sentiment in Bulgaria, Rumania, and Greece.

THE BALKAN STATES

This is already true of Bulgaria and Rumania. It is reported that the Bulgarian Government has itself concentrated a force of a hundred and fifty thousand men on the Turkish frontier. The statement of the Bulgarian Prime Minister is now confirmed by the statements of Bulgarian representatives abroad, that, if Servia and Greece will cede that part of Macedonia inhabited mostly by Bulgars, the Bulgarian troops would immediately march on Constantinople.

In Rumania the new conditions are reflected in the report that the railways have received orders to place all rolling stock at the disposition of the Minister of War within three weeks.

As to Greece, while the Venizelos Cabinet, succeeding that of the neutralist Demetrios Ghounaris, has signalized its entrance to power by a declaration of neutrality, no one believes that the man who, against seemingly insurmountable obstacles, was able to establish the Balkan Confederation among Greece, Bulgaria, Servia, and Montenegro, and thus expel Turkey from most of her European possessions, will now be powerless in the face of the fact that he is opposed only by his monarch and by a small minority in the Greek Parliament. Eleutherios Venizelos showed his hand last March when he arranged with the Bulgarian Prime Minister for a retrocession of sufficient territory to keep Bulgaria from attacking Greece, and intimated to the Entente Powers that Greece could send a large force to their assistance at the Dardanelles. What he planned then he possibly plans now.

COTTON CONTRABAND

Great Britain has declared cotton contraband.

This means that all cotton destined to

Germany is subject to seizure whether there is a blockade or not.

In the opinion of many, this declaration of cotton as contraband is not likely to make any very great difference practically. Germany is blockaded by Great Britain. No vessels can go in or out of German ports on the North Sea, and no vessels can, without England's consent, go from the Atlantic into the Baltic Sea. England's blockade does not prevent trade between Germany and the Baltic ports of other countries; but it does prevent all trade between Germany and the United States except as it may be carried on through other neutral countries. It is in order to prevent this trade with Germany through other neutral ports that Great Britain has stopped and searched vessels going to and from ports in Holland and in other neutral countries bordering on the North Sea. Complaint has been made that Great Britain had no right to prevent this trade through neutral ports. Great Britain replied by citing our own practice during the Civil War. One of the rejoinders to Great Britain's reply was that our practice had to do only with contraband, and that cotton was not contraband. So now England calls cotton contraband. The legal analogy is supposed to be made complete.

A good deal of this discussion is, of course, not over facts and things, but over words. It was the same kind of debate that occurred when Great Britain first started to shut off trade from Germany. There was great complaint because she did not call what she was doing "a blockade." When she gave it that particular name, a great deal of that complaint ceased, but she did not change her practice in the least. So now she is going to call cotton "contraband," and we have no doubt that a great deal of the complaint that has arisen will cease.

With the cessation of the old complaint, however, a new ground for complaint has been found. England early in the war said she was going to follow, with a few exceptions that do not apply to this case, the principles laid down in the Declaration of London-and the Declaration of London. excludes from the list of contraband raw cotton. Moreover, England told us that she was not going to declare cotton contraband. Now she has done what she said she was not intending to do.

There is some ground for regarding cotton as contraband, for it is used in the manu

which an entire edition was suppressed because of an editorial that appeared in it.

The "Survey" of August 21 reprints this editorial in full. We here give some extracts from it-enough to show clearly that there are men in Germany who feel as strongly as most of us in America that the policy of militaristic aggression is a menace to the world, that Germany is responsible for bringing on the present war, and that those who are fighting against Germany are fighting a war of defense on behalf of liberty. Here are some of the things that "Vorwärts

The present crisis is terrible. . . . It shows us that the German people is stricken with a malady which in the end may prove fatal; and this malady is jingoism.

To argue the contrary was to risk being lynched. As soon as war was actually declared the people of other nations were subjected to every insult. We were honest Germans; our adversaries were "brutal Russians," " perfidious English," "insolent Serbs." . . . As to who began the war-we were the innocent lambs, while the French, Russians, and British were the wolves of the fable. Those who formerly had imputed to the Jews all the faults of our social state now discovered in England the cause of everything.

Then one heard the atrocious details of the war in Belgium. The inhabitants had fired on our soldiers. The Belgians were assassins," savage beasts," unworthy of any consideration. They must expiate their crimes by sword and fire. No one troubled to explain the uprising of the Belgian people.

Those who desire war ought to accept the evils that it brings. To be enthusiastic for war and then to descend to petty stories about dumdum bullets is simply to grow besotted. Our jingoes have yelled, a hundred thousand times since the war began, " The duty of every citizen is to defend his country to his last breath." Those poor wretches of Belgium and Francehave they done anything else? Have they not defended home and fatherland? If we acted thus, our conduct would be heroic. On the part of our adversaries it is rebellion and murder.

Let us understand, then, that we are not merely Germans, French, or Russians, but that we are all men, that all the peoples are of the same blood, and that they have no right to kill one another, but that they ought to love and help one another. Such is Christianity, humane

conduct. Man does not belong to one nation only; he belongs to humanity.

THE ISLAND OF HAITI

Every day some new event emphasizes the increasing interest which the island of Haiti has for all who watch the beginnings of law and order.

The cruder form of civilization is represented by that third of the island governed by the Haitian Republic.

The present exigency apparently affords to the United States Government a valuable opportunity for beginning such a work as it began in Santo Domingo (the other two-thirds of the island) in 1905, and which has redounded to our lasting credit.

Like many another Latin-American country, Haiti has been a hotbed of intrigue and revolution; indeed, revolution has seemed the normal and not the abnormal element of life there. The most recent revolution, as already described in The Outlook, necessitated American intervention, and, since the latest chronicle of Haitian affairs in this paper, the area of our intervention has been considerably extended. We began by entering Port-au-Prince. It was then necessary to secure Cap Haïtien. Now it has become necessary to take over the custom-house at Saint Mare. Admiral Caperton, in charge of our affairs, has assumed charge of these custom-houses. It is expected that our naval forces in Haiti will shortly be increased by some three hundred and fifty marines, who will take twelve three-inch guns to the island. These will be a welcome reinforcement to the expeditionary force of marines and bluejackets now ashore. The request for the additional force was based on reports that the rebels in the interior of the republic were organizing to attack the Americans. The additional marines will give Admiral Caperton a total of more than twenty-five hundred men available for shore duty, enough to meet all probable emergencies.

Of course this is merely the first step in the preservation of law and order in the interests of the Haitians themselves. Further steps are necessary, owing to the educational and financial exigencies. Somebody must do something to free the natives from their dreadful ignorance and superstition, and somebody ought to assume more than temporary control of the custom-houses, so that the financial and economic history of Santo Domingo may be repeated in the Haitian

Republic. That somebody, of course, must be our own Government.

We are glad to add that our Government has now expressed its desire to the Haitian Government to draft a ten-year treaty under which there shall be established a control of Haitian customs dues similar to our control in Santo Domingo; that American officers shall command the municipal and rural police, and that no Haitian territory shall be ceded to any foreign power except the United States.

CLOSING THE

SULLIVAN INCIDENT

The Sullivan story in Santo Domingo was supposed to have come to an end with the enforced resignation of Sullivan, but there is an epilogue. The story does not really end with the disappearance of the discredited Minister. The incident is really closed by the appointment of a new Minister. He is William Worthington Russell, we are glad to say. He has served his country well in Venezuela as Secretary of Legation; in Panama as Chargé d'Affaires; in Colombia, and then in Venezuela, and finally in Santo Domingo, as Minister. The appointment is thus a re

appointment.

.

It seems incredible that a man of Mr. Russell's qualifications and experience should have been asked to resign. And yet he was. There was nothing against his record, and, in addition, he was nominally a Democrat. But he had to make room for a more "deserving " Democrat, to use Mr. Bryan's expression.

Certainly one of the worst features, if not the worst, of the Bryan maladministration at Washington was the Sullivan incident. It began with the dismissal of Mr. Russell and now ends by his reappointment.

PAN-AMERICAN RECIPROCITY

After the enactment of the Federal Trade Commission Law, President Wilson pointed out that the Commission might exercise all the functions of a tariff board.

The first step by the Administration to utilize the Commission's powers in this direction has just been begun. It is in the announcement made by the Treasury Department, as follows:

The Commission will make a searching study of all the artificial barriers raised by adverse laws and regulations that hinder the expansion of our commerce with the republics of the

gered by the nature of the appointments. Three members were chosen to represent employers, three to represent employees, and three to represent the so-called "public." The element of strife which exists in industry was thus introduced into the Commission itself. Moreover, the Chairman, Mr. Frank P. Walsh, who was one of the public's representatives, made it clear from the start that he had no intention of being judicial. His conception of his office was that it was a platform from which he could carry on an agitation.

The hearings were conducted in such a way as to call attention to sensational evidence and testimony rather than to testimony and evidence that were significant.

By its

Nevertheless, some of the results of these hearings have been of public benefit. very dissensions the Commission has demonstrated how deep is the rift between employers and employees, between capital and labor. The Commission has made, furthermore, the industrial problems of the day a matter of news. It has put social problems on the front page of the newspaper. It has thus

made a great many people, who have been indifferent through ignorance, think. And it has also revealed to the country some dangers, particularly in some otherwise hidden currents of opinion. And, finally, it has recorded some facts and some suggestions which it is well worth while having on record.

SOME POINTS OF

AGREEMENT

Of course such a Commission could not agree on anything very definite. The newspaper report that the nine members of the Commission had succeeded in issuing ten separate and conflicting opinions was impressionistic rather than accurate. As a matter of fact, the Commission resolved itself into three groups. One consisted of the Chairman and the three labor members; the second consisted of the two remaining members of the "public," one of them Professor John R. Commons, of the University of Wisconsin; and the third consisted of the employers' representatives. The two latter groups united for the most part in a common report prepared by Professor Commons, to which the employers' representatives took some exceptions in a separate statement. It thus happens that the majority report is made by a minority of the membership. What is still more paradoxical is that the radical group in

this Commission makes recommendations that are somewhat conventional, while it is the moderate group that makes the one suggestion that is really radical.

In one particular at least all of the members of the Commission agree without saying so. All their recommendations, radical and moderate alike, involve a larger exercise of power by the Federal Government. The old idea that such questions as safeguarding the rights of property, promoting the welfare of the wage-earner, preventing unrest among the people, and securing justice between employer and employee should be confined to action by the several States does not appear, so far as we have seen, in any part of this Commission's reports. The employers and employees and the public alike, if we may judge by the statements of their respective representatives, agree that these industrial questions are National in their scope and require National treatment.

In two particulars at least all the members of this Commission come to some sort of common agreement. They all agree that there should be some sort of Federal inheritance tax; and they all agree that there should be further provision for permanent investigation of social questions and administration of social and industrial laws.

The Walsh faction in the Commission wish not only to tax inheritances but to prohibit by law the transmission through inheritance of a sum greater than one million dollars. The other members of the Commission do not agree to this limitation of inheritance, but advocate a Federal inheritance tax graded so that the larger the inheritance the larger the per cent of the tax should be.

The Walsh faction make a multitude of recommendations. They propose laws of a great many different sorts-but too many by far to report here. They wish to initiate at least two Constitutional amendments, one embodying a bill of rights and the other pro- . hibiting the courts from declaring any law unconstitutional; and they advocate statutes protecting labor organizations, modifying jury duty, regulating detective agencies, enlarging the powers of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Labor, and so on. The rest of the Commission, led by Professor Commons, lay emphasis upon the establishment of a permanent Industrial Commission by the Federal Government. This is a really radical suggestion, for instead of attempting to deal with this symptom and that by one

statute and another, it would intrust the whole problem to a non-political body, not connected with any regular department of the Government, but as independent of control by any Cabinet member as the Inter-State Commerce Commission.

WHAT THESE

RECOMMENDATIONS SIGNIFY

Without going further into details it is impossible to criticise these reports. It is, however, here possible to point out certain conclusions to which reasonable persons ought to come as a result of some of these suggestions.

First, the evils tolerated in employers do not justify the toleration of evils in the labor organizations. The fact that the Black List is resorted to by corporations does not give any ground for defending what is known as the Secondary Boycott. Industrial war will never be cured by legalizing one wrong as a reprisal for another. In this respect we think that Mr. Commons is wrong and the representatives of the employers, in registering their exception, are right.

Second, there is no doubt of the right of a government to set a limit upon inheritances. Inheritance is a privilege secured by government, and it can be curtailed by government. We do not believe, however, that the way to deal with the evils of large accumulations of wealth is by limiting inheritance to an arbitrarily determined sum. On the other hand, we believe it is clear that the taxation of inheritances is one of the best forms of taxation, and that it is within the function of government to levy that tax, not merely with a view to the raising of money for public purposes, but also for the purpose of securing in the interest of all the people a larger measure of justice in the distribution of wealth.

Third, the way to deal with these large industrial questions is not through a series of unrelated laws, but through the creation or enlargement of administrative power. In this respect we believe that Mr. Commons and his associates are nearer the truth in advocating the creation of a permanent Federal Industrial Commission than are Mr. Walsh and his associates in advocating a series of statutes and Constitutional amendments. On the other hand, there is danger in multiplying unnecessarily governmental commissions. Certainly the country as yet is not ready for the elaborately planned Industrial