The pretensions of the Turks cannot be tolerated." THE EARTHQUAKE CATASTROPHE IN CHILE T is impossible at this writing to esti I'mate with any degree or accuracy the number of fatalities from the earthquake of November 11 in Chile. Probably a thousand perished, and the fatalities may be largely in excess of that number. The disaster affected a great stretch near the coast; much, if not most, of the damage was inflicted by a tremendous wave which followed a subsidence or break beneath the bottom of the sea; so that, first, enormous quantities of water sank through the crevices, and, secondly, its withdrawal caused an inrush of the ocean. The towns of Coquimbo, Copiapo, and Valenar were seriously damaged and the last was practically destroyed. Numerous small places and country districts were devastated; the length of the territory damaged is put at about 1,200 miles. Earthquakes are no novelty in Chile. As long ago as 1853 the town of Concepcion was destroyed by an earthquake quite similar to that now recorded, and the whole country along the coast has often suffered from smaller disasters of this kind. rifying, both because of the vastness and mystery of the overwhelming power which produces it and because man can neither escape from it nor protect himself against it. The ancients, as modern barbarians do, ascribed earthquakes to the malevolence of demons or to the anger of outraged gods. All unusual and gigantic phenomena of nature, they thought, were produced by supernatural causes. Thus Herodotus, whose history is one of the great classics of all literature, in two passages mentions eclipses as prodigies or portents of the gods, in both cases unfavorable to the Greeks and foreshadowing their destruction. Science, however, made earlier and more rapid progress in astronomy than in seismology, a term of very old Greek derivation employed by geologists to define the very modern study of earthquakes. For, while the Greeks and Egyptians knew something about the cause of eclipses before the Christian Era, it is only within a few decades that an attempt has been made to formulate the causes of earthquakes. Even now a good deal of explanation of earthquake phenomena is hypothetiCal. In general, however, it may be Said that scientific investigators be . lieve that earthquakes are caused in two ways-either by the explosive press. ure of volcanic gases in the molten interior of the earth or by the slipping or displacement of gigantic strata of rock under the earth's surface. In the one case the earthquake is a monstrous explosion, in the other a monstrous landslide. In most recorded cases the landslide or explosion has taken place near the sea or under its bed, so that it has been accompanied by a violent and deathdealing tidal wave. The earthquake that destroyed Lisbon in 1755 was followed by a tidal wave which swept the shores of Portugal and drowned or dashed to death thousands of human beings. Altogether 40,000 lives were lost in that disaster. Messina was shaken by an earthquake in 1783 and again in 1908, and on the latter occasion a great tidal wave wrought much of the destruction which resulted in the death of 60,000 persons. The recent Chilean earthquake and tidal wave, while terrible and sad enough, are not comparable in magnitude to the Portuguese and Italian disasters, nor probably, in loss of life, to two great earthquakes which have stricken India during the last twenty-five years. It is not surprising that there were times when the Hebrew poet thought man to be a puny thing in the midst of the incalculable forces of nature: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou hast made the earth to tremble; thou hast broken it. Heal the breaches thereof; for it shaketh. ... He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth; he toucheth the hills, and they smoke!" ANSWER TO THE ROLL CALL HE sixth annual Roll Call of the Red Cross is now under way and will continue until Thanksgiving Day. Once a year the Red Cross appeals to the American public to join in its work. The Roll Call is just what the name indicates; a call to members to renew their membership and to those not members to find out what the Red Cross is and does and then become members. This is not a "drive" in the usual meaning of an attempt to raise contributions and donations; no doubt the National Red Cross welcomes at any time of the year new memberships and special contributions, but its sole direct appeal to the public is to join in membership. We do not know what the exact figures of membership are at present. A year ago there were about six million members a much larger membership than had existed before the war. As probably most of our readers know, the membership fees, amounting to sev eral million dollars, go directly for relief purposes; the beautiful National Red Cross building in Washington was paid for from special contributions made for that purpose; the National officers, or most of them, either serve without pay or are paid from special contributions made outside the membership fees; thus membership fees paid by individuals go intact to carry out the work of the association. WHAT THE RED CROSS DOES HAT is that work, now that the war has long since been ended? This is a question sometimes asked, and easily answered. The watchword of the Red Cross is "Always Ready." One big part of its work is to be ready for emergencies. When such disasters happen as those at San Francisco and Galveston and Tulsa, and now Smyrna, relief and help cannot be improvised in a minute. This is just what the Red Cross is for; to have funds, railway trains, nurses, doctors, medical supplies, food, tents, ready to send with speed to any place where the need is great. The greatest emergency this century has seen was the emergency of the Great War. What the Red Cross did need not now be recapitulated. It can be told only in terms of many millions of money and of arduous and unpaid service of many thousands of men and women. Since the war the Red Cross has rendered services of vast magnitude in devastated countries and regions; nor is its work in this direction to be confined to the ravages of the past. President Harding, who is the President of the American Red Cross, in announcing the present Roll Call, points out that a fearful emergency exists abroad at this moment. In the Near East, he says, "the lives of millions of unfortunate people even now depend and must continue for a long time to depend on the untiring liberality of more favored communities." The relief that is to come from this country must be rendered, as President Harding points out, almost entirely through co-operation between the Red Cross, the Near East Relief, and some smaller agencies. It is understood that the Red Cross expects to spend for the Near East at least five million dollars. It could not spend it now if it did not have it now; it would not have it now if it had not been for the membership fees of last year. On the day we go to press the American Red Cross has cabled to Red Cross chapters in Chile offering aid to sufferers from the earthquake. One other among many activities of the Red Cross may be mentioned, namely, the aid it renders to the returned American soldier. Colonel Forbes, the Director of the Veterans' Bureau, speaking for the ex-service man, says: "Whether it be a matter of calling the Bureau's attention to an unrewarded claim, or an ill man needing hospitalization, or of tiding the sick veteran over the time which must elapse before Government aid can be offered, the Red Cross is always on the job with expert service and the necessary goods." These are only the larger divisions of the humane work of the American Red Cross. Its public health activities, its encouragement of sound sanitary systems, its education in. first aid, its training of nurses, its work in the schools, are less outstanding, but combined are extremely valuable. We join with President Harding in urging Americans to renew their allegiance to the Red Cross "in the interests of our common humanity and of the service which we owe to our fellow-men." THE ELECTION AS A SCHOOL Midnight, October 22, 1780. Franklin. Eh! oh! eh! What nave I done to merit these cruel sufferings? Gout. Many things: you have ate and drunk too freely and too much indulged those legs of yours in their indolence. Franklin. Who is it that accuses me? Gout. It is I, even I, the Gout. Franklin. What? My enemy in person? Gout. No, not your enemy. B ENJAMIN FRANKLIN, whose paper in the form of a dialogue between himself and the gout thus begins, was wise enough to learn the uses of adversity. What the gout was to Franklin failure can be made to be to any one. It can be made to serve as a physician, a teacher, a good friend. Fools encounter defeat or censure, and become angry. The timid encounter defeat or censure, and become discouraged. The wise encounter defeat or censure, and learn from it. Whether the elections on November 7 were a victory for the Democratic party is disputed; but it is universally recognized that those elections were a defeat for the Republican party. There is reason for doubt whether the people by their votes were eager to register their approval of the Democratic party; but there is no doubt that they registered censure for the Republican party. By our laws the Republican party, in spite of the adverse vote, will remain in power in the National Administration for over two years to come; and will even continue in control of Congress by the present overwhelming majority until next March, and by a narrower margin for two years thereafter. It is therefore If experience of the past is any guide leadership. The people have common sense enough to know that the legislative and the executive machinery cannot run without direction. They want in charge of that machinery engineers who are willing to accept responsibility and exercise the corresponding authority. Defeat can also teach Republican leaders a lesson in political appointments. Americans as a rule recognize the need of political organization. Indeed, they are among the most conservative people in the world in their loyalty to organized parties. During the past generation, however, they have been be coming more and more distrustful of party politics and party politicians. They are more sensitive than they were to appointments made for purely party reasons. They demand in every appointment at least the apparent justification of public service instead of party re ward. They may not always be right in their judgment as to the men most fitted for public positions. They are willing to roll up a large vote for a man like Charles Steinmetz for the position of State Engineer in New York because, If they do, they will find defeat a good perhaps without sufficient reason, they teacher. Defeat can teach them a lesson in leadership. A self-governing people like the Americans do not like bosses, but they demand leaders. They do not wish to be ordered about and told what to do; but they are ready to follow a man who understands their needs, has the insight to read their thoughts and interpret them aright, has the knowledge of the past to enable him to avoid pitfalls, has faith in the country's future, and has the authority of character and mind to direct the forces of government in carrying out the people's will. It is a mistake to believe that the people of America do not want leaders. It is a mistake to believe that the people are afraid to have those in positions of executive responsibility exercise authority. No two men in American history form a more striking contrast than Roosevelt and Wilson, but they both were willing to lead, and each found that the people were willing to follow him as long as they believed he represented their will and purpose. To-day there is a widespread feeling that the Administration has been reluctant to lead. In particular, it is felt that the President, out of a sincere and unselfish desire to promote the spirit of co-operation, has been too willing to forego opportunities for shaping legislation, for forming and guiding public opinion, and for controlling through executive authority such disturbances as the coal and railway strikes. There is a feeling also that within Congress itself there is lack of intelligent, public-spirited, courageous believe that a man who has gained a great reputation as an inventor and as a scientist would be a good administrator of a public office that has to do with engineering; and they do this although Mr. Steinmetz had no place on either of the great party tickets. They believe that the appointment of Mr. Daugherty to the position of Attorney-General was not because he was the greatest lawyer available but because he was a powerful agent of the party in the State. They believe that the appointment of Mr. Reily to Porto Rico was not because he was the fittest man that could be found for the difficult task of colonial administrator, but because it was convenient to find some berth for a man who had rendered political service. They ought perhaps to remember that the former Administration made a worse appointment to Santo Domingo, and that the present Administration has chosen for Governor of the Philippines the greatest colonial administrator in history; but it ought not to be altogether distasteful to Republicans that the people should expect better things of this Administration than the worst of the preceding one, or that they should consider it natural that the high standard adopted in the Philippines should be applied to Porto Rico and elsewhere. That there is widespread dissatisfaction with the appointment of Dr. Sawyer as the Administration's chief spokesman concerning public health and public welfare is obvious, and it is no less pronounced because that appointment is attributed to personal rather than political causes. More and more people are demanding that appointments to public office should be made for public reasons. Defeat ought to be able to teach Republican leaders a lesson in political management. Again and again Americans have shown their discontent with the old method, followed in both parties, known as log-rolling. The fact that the people themselves are apt to follow this method in local politics renders them no more tolerant of it when it is followed S in National politics; indeed, it may be one of the very reasons why they are intolerant of it. They do not like petty ways of dealing with matters of National concern. In particular, they are outraged by the log-rolling method as applied to the tariff. Very few Americans know anything about the specific schedules of the Tariff Bill which Congress recently passed; but they saw those schedules determined by a logrolling method. They saw their representatives swapping votes for the sake of satisfying special interests, giving a concession here for the sake of one interest in exchange for concessions on behalf of another interest. They have seen that method used again and again; and if they are disgusted with it more this time than ever before, it is because their disgust has become cumulative. It is this kind of political management that they identify with reaction. They are ready to trust almost any man who speaks to them in the terms of general interests as distinct from those who seek favor by giving favors for special interests. Defeat possibly may teach Republican leaders, finally, a lesson in humanity. No matter how efficient, or high-minded, or industrious a public servant may be, Americans are not likely to trust him long with responsibility if they feel that he does not understand them and does not see the problems of the Nation in terms of the problems of the individuals who comprise the Nation. Men of widely different political opinions, widely different economic views, may all be successful in a single election if they all appear to the people to be thinking in terms of the experience of the individual men and women whom they seek to represent. Gifford Pinchot and Smith Brookhart, "Al" Smith and Henry Ford, to cite but four instances out of many, are men whom the people generally regard as human. It was this element of human understanding, the ability to think as the people themselves were thinking, that gave Theodore Roosevelt a unique place of leadership as long as he lived and will endear his memory to the American people through all coming generations. Such personalities cannot be made to order, but if party leaders wish to maintain their party in control they must find men who not only have integrity and public spirit and the genius for command, but also personal understanding of the ordinary man and woman. These, we think, are some of the lessons which defeat may teach the Republican leaders if they are teachable. Perhaps at the end of their course of discipline they may be tempted to say to Defeat as Franklin said to the Gout: "I submit and thank you for the past, but intreat the discontinuance of your visits for the future; for in my mind one had better die than be cured so dolefully." And possibly they might profit, as indeed all political leaders would profit, if Gout's final warning might be put into the mouth of Defeat: "I know you too well. You promise fair, but after a few months of good health you will return to your old habits; your fine promises will be forgotten like the forms of the last year's clouds. Let us, then, finish the account, and I will go. But I leave you with an assurance of visiting you again at a proper time and place; for my object is your good, and you are sensible now that I am your real friend." I PROHIBITION F, as the "Wets" claim, prohibition was put over on an unsuspecting and unwilling public by the covert and cunning action of a small group of zealots and fanatics, the prohibitory law is certainly not going to stay on the statute-books without wide discussion and a good many rigorous tests of public sentiment. The late election furnished some of those tests. The triumph of Senator Edwards in New Jersey certainly shows that an unmistakable majority of the voters of that State want beer and light wines, if not the good old American corner saloon. In New York the issue was somewhat obscured, although the "Drys" must admit that Governor Smith's overwhelming vote is an indication that the ardor of the women of the State for prohibition is not what it was thought to be. In Massachusetts the "Wets" claim to be encouraged by the election, although there the issue was, as in New York, obscured by other questions. The "Drys," however, are justified in being jubilant about California and Ohio. California, in which wine-making was until recently a leading industry, has adopted by a clear majority a measure which insures effective State cooperation with the Federal authorities in enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment. This is really significant. And Ohio, which has never been a pro hibition State, rolled up the extraordinary majority of 187,000 against light wines and beer. The number of Americans who want a return of the gin-mill, the corner liquor saloon, the village barroom, is negligible. There are thousands of good citizens, however, who would like to be able to have a glass of claret with their dinner or a glass of beer on a summer evening while listening to a good band concert. Now this picture of a glass of ruby Pontet Canet or of amber Liebfraumilch at the family dinner table and of a cooling stein of Pilsner or Würzburger at the family concert party is really very tempting. The trouble is that these nice things cannot be had without the liquor saloon. It has been tried, and the attempt has failed over and over again. The dispensary system has failed in the South; the Gothenburg system has failed in the Scandinavian countries. It seems to be pretty conclusive that if we take beer and light wines we must take the grog-shop along with them. The man who says, "Oh, no! I don't want the saloon back again; all I want is light wine and beer," either does not know what he is talking about or does not really mean what he says. What he really means or is that, saloon saloon, he ought not to be deprived of his personal pleasure. Don Marquis, the genial and perspicacious satirist of the New York "Tribune," hits the nail on the head with this well-aimed stroke: "If they do make light wines an' beers legal," grumbled Clem Hawley, The Old Soak, yesterday, "that ain't gonna mean much to us drinkin' men. The trouble with light wines is that they're light. An' the trouble with beer is that it takes up room that orter to be used for hard liquor." no Stripped of all sophism, the question is simply a problem in social expediency. Is it better for the Nation to insist upon the personal liberty of every man to decide for himself about the use of alcoholic beverages or to insist upon the sacrifice of that form of personal liberty in order to abolish the liquor saloon with the alcoholism, the vice, the crime, and the political corruption which it inevitably produces? Prohibition is not a matter of abstract morals; it is a matter of social welfare, like the abolition of the personal liberty of spitting where one chooses or the institution of compulsory vaccination. Viewed in this light, it is the greatest and most interesting experiment that has ever been tried in the history of civilization. It is certainly worth trying fairly and honestly. Notwithstanding New Jersey, we believe that a substantial majority of Americans want to see that trial made. protects herself partially with the robe of Britannia, a helmeted figure behind her. |