country in which such an event would be a matter of first-class newspaper importance to all classes of the nation:

"University life bids fair to become," writes Professor Hobhouse, "a far more important factor in the public opinion of America than it has ever been in this country. To find a parallel to it we should have to go to Germany. This is partly due to the very large numbers of students. I have no complete figures, but four or five thousand students in a university is no uncommon number, and there are many universities of a high, and several of the first, order in the Union. In a single State like Wisconsin, with a small population, the university numbers some five thousand students, men and women. A great many of these are at work in the more practical and technical faculties, as those of agriculture and commerce. But the education in these faculties is of a liberal order. It stands close to the practical career of the student, and at the same time broadens his view of his work and acquaints him, on the one side, with the scientific theory underlying its technic, on the other side with its economic, social, and, one may say, its ethical bearings. The students of these schools easily obtain responsible positions in the business world, and I have had testimony quite independent of the professoriate to the effect of the introduction of the university training in improving not merely the efficiency but the morality of business."

IN FORESTRY

The annual summer meetPROGRESS ing of the American Forestry Association which lately took place at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, was notable because of four events. The first was the election of a new President: Governor Bass, of New Hampshire, was made President in succession to ex-Governor Curtis Guild, of Massachusetts, now United States Ambassador to Russia, who tendered his resignation to the Association when he received his ambassadorial appointment. The second event was the announcement of the operation of the Weeks Bill in the White Mountain region. This measure authorizes the Federal Government to purchase forested lands at the sources of navigable streams. In the White Mountains only twenty thousand acres have so far been offered for sale-not a very generous amount. Most of the lands offered have been examined in detail by the Forest Service. In some measure the American Forestry Association has

been able to co-operate with the officers of the Forest Service in inducing New Hampshire landowners to offer their lands at fair prices. We regret to add that some large owners, and particularly some of those controlling the southern slopes of the White Mountains, have been entirely indifferent. It will thus be impossible to complete the purchases in the area outlined by the Forest Service, within which purchases may be made, except in two ways: (1) either public pressure must be brought to bear upon the landowners, so that they will offer their lands to the Government, or (2) action must be taken which will insure land acquisition. No action of the latter kind can be taken except by the National Forest Reservation Commission, created by the Weeks Law, and the Commission is not likely to proceed to compulsory acquisition as long as lands are freely offered elsewhere, or unless they become persuaded that public duty requires such action. It does require it. The preservation of timber on the White Mountain watershed is

absolutely essential to New England's continued welfare. The third event was the gratifying report of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. Its forester was able to announce that many residents around Lake Sunapee had requested the Society to serve as trustee and hold for them their aggregations of hundreds of acres of land on Mount Sunapee, and to arrange this land in such a manner as not only to preserve the forests on the mountain, but also to develop the growth. The Society has rendered its services free; for its future services in the development of the land it should, and of course will, be recompensed. The fourth event was the announcement that "American Forestry" is to take over "American Conservation,' the organ of the National Conservation Association. "American Conservation" is to be discontinued, not because it has failed to meet the expectation of its founders-for it has not so failed-but because it absorbs the time and energy needed for the practical constructive work of the National Conservation Association, and the heads of that Association believe that they can more

profitably devote its increasing influence to the accomplishment of this work than to the interesting and useful but less effective task of pointing out the way to it.

another a private paper of the same type. Each is designed to influence religious and philanthropic people who mean well and do not think deeply, or who are entirely intelligent but lack the means of ascertaining the facts. Each accordingly is filled with articles advocating virtue in the

"INTERESTS"

It is, of course, unnecessary to remind the readers of The Outlook of the work done by Judge Lindsey, the Children's Judge. He has brought about in Denver far-reaching and sorely needed reforms of police and prison conditions, and has achieved the creation of a Children's Court which he has made one of the most effective agencies in this country for dealing with the problem of youthful criminals and delinquents. In the fearless prosecution of his work he has earned the honorable distinction of the bitter opposition of both political machines in the State, and of the powerful special interests which it is matter of common notoriety are in Colorado in corrupt partnership with one or other of those machines. Against this bitter opposition he has been kept in his office at the head of the Children's Court, which he created, because the best citizenship of Denver believe in his integrity and in the effectiveness of the work he is doing. The assaults upon Judge Lindsey by his enemies, avowed and secret, have been vicious and unrelenting; and some of those assaults have taken the insidious form of attacks by those who are ostensibly working for the same end as himself, but who in reality are unavowed but no less effective partners of special privilege.

In. the issue of The Outlook for March 25, Mr. Roosevelt, in a foot-note to an editorial, writing of the "great moneyed interests which have exercised so sinister a control over our political and social life," referred to the case of Judge Lindsey and said that he has been "violently assailed and vilified by the orators and newspapers directly or indirectly subsidized by the interests. One of his illuminating experiences has been with certain journals of a nominally philanthropic type. One of One of these was a paper nominally issued in the interest of the protection of children and dumb animals by the State itself, and

virtue which does not interfere with the financial well-being of the great corrupt corporations, and then, having thus

predisposed its auditors in its favor, inserts a vicious assault upon Judge Lindsey in an effort to discredit him."

In The Outlook of May 27 was printed a letter from a committee of five members of the Board of Directors of the Colorado State Bureau of Child and Animal Protection, the organization which publishes the first of the periodicals referred to in Mr. Roosevelt's foot-note. In the course of this letter the committee wrote: This organization has been in existence for thirty years, is responsible for a large part of the legislation in this State for the protection of children and the lesser animals and for most of its enforcement. . . . .Its good faith and singleness of purpose have never before been questioned from any responsible source. We desire to say that all those parts of your article which intimate that this organization is, or ever was, influenced in the slightest degree, directly or indi rectly, by any of the interests,' as you define them, or that such influence was ever attempted by any of them in any way, or that the organization is, or ever was, influenced in any of its actions or expressions by anything but a sincere desire to promote the welfare of children and the lesser animals, are wholly untrue."

That the Bureau of Child and Animal Protection, through its official organ, "Child and Animal Protection," has consistently and viciously assailed Judge Lindsey and his work there is no room for question. One such attack reads in part as follows:

"There is undoubtedly no more amazing instance of successful humbug in recent times than the career of Judge Lindsey, and no more discouraging spectacle of egotism and hypocrisy than the same career presents. . . The attitude of this Bureau toward Lindsey and the

Court has been the same from the start. His motives were apparently selfish, his methods undoubtedly silly, and the result could not fail to be bad. A traitor who has on occasion been a Judas to his friends and a Benedict Arnold to his city and his State. . . . No reputation and no influence gained by humbug and deception can remain fair and good. The man who is willing to gain a reputation by wrecking those of other men is surely signing notes he will shortly have to pay in discredit, disgrace, and shame. . When exposure comes in Judge Lindsey's case the record of this Bureau will be clear. Nobody can point to an indorsement of him or his juvenile court, direct or indirect, except so far, and so far only, as the facts warrant and justify. have accepted none of his invitations; attended none of his banquets; been present at none of his meetings-have been careful not to place ourselves in a position which would lend color to his inevitable claim that he and his court were indorsed by this Bureau."

We

This attack, only one of many of equal virulence which have appeared in the pages of "Child and Animal Protection, leaves no room for doubt as to the position which the Bureau takes in relation to Judge Lindsey and his splendid work. Such antagonism as this on the part of a Bureau which is organized for the purpose of child protection, directed against a man with a record of accomplishment in this very field of child protection like that of Judge Lindsey, does not indicate a passionate desire for child protection in the agents of the Bureau.

But the Bureau's record in this very field is far from clear. The committee of its Board of Directors declared that the organization "is responsible for a large part of the legislation in this State for the protection of children . . and for most of its enforcement."

There is convincing evidence that when, at the last session of the Colorado Legislature, several bills dealing with child labor were under consideration, the Bureau, through its agents, threw the weight of its influence against the bill which would effectually prohibit the labor of children and in favor of a bill which, in the opinion of experts, not only would not

prevent child labor but would actually legalize it in certain industries. Fortunately, the Lafferty Bill, which has been called by an officer in the State Labor Department "the most outrageous imposition ever sought to be imposed upon the people of any State as a child labor law," was defeated; and after a hard fight, in which the agents of the Bureau were active against the proposed legislation, the Jones Bill, drafted by Judge Lindsey, became law. That Colorado now has an effective law prohibiting the employment of children in dangerous occupations is due in large measure to Judge Lindsey, and not in the slightest degree in the slightest degree to the State Bureau of Child and Animal Protection. The agents of the Bureau would have killed such a law if they could. Their efforts may not have been made at the behest of the "interests," but there can be no question that they would have been eminently satisfactory to the "interests" if they had been successful.

The position of the Bureau in relation to the field which it was primarily supposed to cover is further illustrated by its persistent reiteration of the statement that there is no child labor in Colorado, made during a time when those who knew the facts knew that conditions in the mining, smelting, and other dangerous industries were, to use the word of one official investigator, "terrible." And the industries in which these evils existed (until the passage of the law drafted by Judge Lindsey and opposed by the Bureau) were owned by some of the very interests which have debauched Colorado politically and socially.

But the most convincing evidence in regard to the alliance between pseudophilanthropy and special privilege relates to the letter of denial addressed to The Outlook by the Board of Directors of the Bureau of Child and Animal Protection. That letter was signed by five members of the Board. Subsequently, two of those five members, at a meeting with Judge Lindsey, freely admitted that some time previously a man who is a notorious henchman of the "interests" appeared before the Board of Directors of the Bureau and tried to have a resolution passed either directly denouncing Judge Lindsey or authorizing the Secretary of the Board to make public attacks

upon him. These gentlemen admitted that the man who made this request of the Board had relations with the "interests" which were well known and undeniable; that, while the Directors did not pass the resolution requested, attacks of the kind desired began to appear in "Child and Animal Protection;" that these attacks were, in their opinion, outrageous; and that the circulation of these attacks had unquestionably been useful to the "interests." The fact that these admissions, essentially contradictory to the statements in the letter to The Outlook, were made by two members of the committee which signed that letter is testified to by two prominent citizens of Denver, . Mr. H. G. Fisher, President of the Christian Citizenship Union, and Mr. E. P. Costigan, a leading member of the Colorado bar.

If the gentlemen of the Board of Directors of the Bureau of Child and Animal Protection wish to base their denial "that this organization is, or ever was, influenced in the slightest degree, directly or indirectly, by any of the 'interests,' as you define them, or that such influence was ever attempted by any of them in any way, or that the organization is, or ever was, influenced in any of its actions or expressions, by anything but a sincere desire to promote the welfare of children and the lesser animals," upon the distinction between being used by the "interests" and being useful to the "interests," well and good. But we do not believe that in the court of public opinion this fine-spun distinction will be accepted as an adequate defense. Nor do we believe that public opinion will coincide in their apparent conviction that their refusal to pass a formal resolution authorizing attacks upon Judge Lindsey absolves them from responsibility for those attacks when they actually appeared in their official organ and for the effects of those attacks in giving aid and comfort to the forces of special privilege.

The facts are plain. Special interests were viciously assailing Judge Lindsey, the man who has done more for the protection of the children of Colorado than any other agency in the State. representative of the "interests" asked the Board of Directors of the Bureau of

A

Child and Animal Protection to join in the attacks. The Board declined to take formal action upon this request. Thereafter, however, attacks of the utmost virulence began to appear in the official organ of the Bureau. These attacks were republished in papers known to be controlled by the "interests." The agents of the Bureau have repeatedly declared that there is no child labor in Colorado, when the undeniable fact is that during the last two years child labor has existed in dangerous industries owned by the "interests." At the last session of the Legislature agents of the Bureau did their utmost to prevent the passage of a real child labor law and to bring about the passage of one which, according to experts, would actually legalize child labor in those same industries.

The Bureau of Child and Animal Protection is to be judged not by its professions but by its acts. Whatever its professions, its acts show that it is a derelict guardian of the rights of the children, and a zealous ally of those "interests which find Judge Lindsey's activities on behalf of the children offensive to themselves.

NOT AFRAID, BUT CLEAN

From time to time groups of fanatical religionists appear who propose to reform the world by not wearing clothes, and the police have to be called in to suppress a nuisance. These people are not immoral; on the contrary, they are so good that they believe they have reached the Superman stage," beyond good and evil." So from time to time the cry goes up from some young novelist whom nature has endowed with ambition but from whom she has withheld the ability which makes ambition effective, that American fiction is superficial and feeble because the American novelist is not allowed to tell the truth and present the facts of life; in other words, that in American novels people are compelled to wear clothes.

It is true, sex relations have received far less attention at the hands of American novelists than at the hands of Continental novelists; and in cases in which they are dealt with, as in "The Scarlet Letter" and "The Awakening of Helena

Ritchie," they are handled with great reserve and in a deeply serious spirit. There is so far no "" "Indiana 46 or Mlle. de Maupin" in American fiction, and neither our novelists nor our dramatists show any special interest in sex problems. The stage in this country does not lack plays of unblushing frankness in presenting the under side of social life; but so far they have been mainly "crowd catchers" and not serious dramatic studies from responsible hands.

One reason for this absence of the sex problem in fiction is the inherited reticence of the English-speaking race in dealing with sex relations; a reticence which is as old as the earliest records of the hardy men and women who were bred in the forests of the great section of Europe that is now the German Empire. These vigorous and active peoples were hard fighters, heavy eaters, and deep drinkers; but they had little sex curiosity; a certain shyness goes with great physical activity. Some

of the Latin peoples, on the other hand, inherited from their ancestors of classical antiquity a morbid interest in the passional side of life, and standards of sex morality which rested on impulse rather than on a deep sense of control as the organizing force of character, or on religious conception of the ends of life.

An accomplished French novelist who visited this country not many years ago, commenting on the lack of interest among college students in the fiction of the degenerate school, explained it by the remark, "There is very little in your life to interpret it." The explanation was shrewd, and it was sound. In spite of offenses against morality, which the newspapers report with great energy and sometimes with unfortunate effectiveness, Americans as a whole are not morbidly curious about sex problems, nor abnormally interested in them. The shocking number of divorces has become a National reproach, but does not reflect a low standard of sex morality so much as low views of life, cheap and superficial conceptions of marriage, a tendency to lawless individualism, and a selfishness which amounts to social suicide. There is a thousandfold more dangerous anarchy in the divorce courts than in the meetings of professed Anarchists. But easy divorce

social vulgarity

and remarriage mean rather than sexual immorality.

The broadening of the interests and activities of women in this country has gone a long way toward putting sex impulse in sound relations with the other major interests of life; and the joint interests and activities of men and women have made them comrades as well as lovers. The normal companionship between boys and girls in American communities has contributed largely to the creation of a healthy sex atmosphere. The long history of co-education in this country is practically untouched by scandal. Foreigners find it difficult to understand this freedom, and are often skeptical of the purity of relations which has been developed under it. Such observers, especially if they come from Latin countries, find it almost impossible to believe that freedom of intercourse can be maintained without danger; but no one who knows American society can fail to be impressed by its cleanness. In the large cities the "fast set" is always to be reckoned with; but in this country, it may be added, the "fast set" is an exotic. The daily newspapers report far too many social scandals; but one scandal, if it has sufficient range in time and incident, will be spread over many pages through many issues. The relations of two women, a man, and a bundle of letters are of sufficient importance to fill the columns of metropolitan dailies through a hot summer. lack of the sense of proportion in news values makes the unwary reader feel as if the whole country had gone to the bad; he forgets the millions of decent people who are living normal, wholesome lives outside the glare of the sensational searchlight.

'This

The habit of respect for women formed early in the history of the country, the free and self-respecting relations in which boys and girls grow up, the invigorating athletic life which they share in common and which is a great outlet for physical energy, the comradeship between men and women and the wide range of their mutual interests, have practically destroyed that vicious attitude of men towards women once technically known as "gallantry." A hundred years ago there was no theme. more familiar to the readers of the fiction