in the country as before the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment.

Because of their inability to get anything to drink, thousands of people are taking to drugs.

II

Prohibition has destroyed the legitimate liquor business and yet has allowed the country to become deluged to an extent never known before with poisonous

alcoholic drink. The Government is slowly killing the people.

Prohibition is so ineffective that the manufacturers of illicit liquors are producing liquor which averages as good as that which Americans ever drank.

III

Under prohibition young people see drinking wherever they go, and are therefore enticed into becoming addicts in ever-increasing numbers.

In the old days liquor was served in the home, and young people, being accustomed to it, did not drink to excess.

IV

Prohibition is a gross violation of personal liberty, and should be destroyed on that account if for no other reason.

The evils of prohibition can be eliminated by permitting the Government to sell alcoholic liquors, restricting their sale, of course, to suitable quantities and to people who will not abuse them.

It would seem as though at least fifty per cent of these objections to prohibition must be invalid.

Anti-War Treaties

T

WO draft treaties have been prepared and published as proposals for "outlawing war." One of these, drafted last year, has been offered anew for public discussion by the American Foundation (established by Edward Bok), the other has been drafted by Professor Shotwell and Professor Chamberlain, of Columbia University. They both provide for substitutes for war as a means of settling international disputes. There is nothing of startling novelty in either of them. In both of them resort is had to conciliation, arbitration, and judicial settlement.

In addition, the Church Peace Union (founded by Andrew Carnegie) and the World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches (two organizations with for the most part identical executive officers) have been sending out circulars in the interest of the reduction

armaments and the substitution of eful means of settling disputes in e of war.

These appeals to public opinion have been suggested, first, by what M. Briand, the French Foreign Minister, said on the tenth anniversary of America's entry into the World War, and, secondly, by the forthcoming naval conference between the United States, Great Britain, and Japan.

If nations are to make progress in substituting reason for force in their relations with one another, they must keep faith. No promise is worth anything that is not kept. All the promises in the world are worse than useless if in exigencies they cannot be relied on. It is easy to draw up a treaty. It is not always easy to keep it. All the world knows one treaty that was regarded in a crisis as a scrap of paper. What was the result? The nations that relied on it are suffering and will continue to suffer for a generation or more from their wounds, and the nation that ignored it bids for sympathy-not unsuccessfully-on the ground that it is the victim of its own promises.

America does not want to be the victim of her own promises or those of any other nation.

Let us, therefore, in the first place, make no treaty which we are not sure we shall, under all circumstances even to our own hurt, observe.

Let us, in the second place, not make a treaty with a nation that we cannot trust under all circumstances to keep it.

In deciding what promises we are sure we shall keep, we shall need to consider whether we want to "outlaw" every kind of war. One of the draft treaties specifically excepts from its provisions any war "of defense.” Does that mean simply self-defense? If so, does that mean a nation's defense simply of its own territory or of something more-its institutions, its integrity, its rights? If not, does that mean that a nation is to be more concerned for its soil than for its soul? for its size than for its character? And if all war except war of selfdefense is to be outlawed, then shall a nation, considered honorable if it defends itself, be considered dishonorable if it defends a weaker people?

We shall need, too, to consider whether even in matters not distinctly involving defense-we shall always be willing to forego the resort to force. What provision in any treaty can there be that corresponds to a mandamus or injunction? There are occasions when time is the essence of the matter. While we are waiting for the slow processes of conciliation, arbitration, and judicial settlement, irreparable injury may be done. In domestic affairs under such

conditions a court may issue a mandamus or injunction? In international affairs what can take the place of injunction or mandamus except force? A householder has the right to grapple with a burglar without waiting even for an injunction against burglary. Or, if he thinks it is wiser, he may call the police. He does not sue the burglar. In international affairs to what police can a nation appeal except to its own armed forces?

M. Briand says that "France would be willing to subscribe publicly with the United States to any mutual engagement tending to outlaw war, to use an American expression, as between those two countries." America might well respond by saying that she would willingly subscribe to any such engagement—with France. That is because we can trust France not to do those things that would oppress our neighbors, violate our territory, undermine our institutions, or require us to call in the police. But it does not follow that a treaty with France would serve as a model for a treaty with every other nation-or any other nation. We can make a treaty with France outlawing war just because with France we do not need such a treaty.

Anti-war treaties will be safe-and unnecessary when nations are morally disarmed. The one effectual way to get rid of war is to induce nations to stop doing the things that make war inevitable. Mr. Adachi's article in this issue gives an instance of the surest way to banish the spirit of war. Treaties are useful in proportion as they express mutual concession, mutual understanding. mutual confidence. As Bismarck, the man of blood and iron, recognized, it is the imponderables that count.

Where Is Mr. Carroll and Why?

A

S the aftermath of an episode in the night life of New York, Mr.

Earl Carroli, producer of musical shows, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to a period of incarceration in the Federal Penitentiary at Atlanta. Mr. Carroll said that he was being railroaded to Atlanta because he lied like a gentleman. The more prosaic view of the judge and jury was that he was sent to Atlanta because he had committed perjury. Possibly the fine distinction between the view expressed by Mr. Carroll and the opinion held by the judge and jury is not a matter of any great importance, for Mr. Carroll has never yet been within the walls of the Atlanta Penitentiary.

Underwood & Underwood

It is true that he left New York amid the tears of his friends and the click of camera shutters. His journey South, however, was interrupted by the fact that he is said to have gone into a coma and that since he recovered from the coma he has not been in a physical condition which would permit his removal to Atlanta. The report of Mr. Carroll's condition as described by his own physicians is not wholly convincing to the lay mind. The mass of medical verbiage reduced to plain language seems to bear the simple interpretation that Mr. Carroll does not like the climate of Atlanta. So far the public has been given no authoritative report on Mr. Carroll's condition from Government physicians.

The Outlook certainly has no desire to urge a step which will be dangerous to the health of any man, convicted or unconvicted. We wonder, however, how many people who contemplate the status of Mr. Carroll's incarceration may be moved to the same comment which we recently heard from the lips of a man who had himself felt the rigors of the law in three separate State prisons. Soon after Carroll started South this man offered to bet his savings (honestly acquired, by the way) that Earl Carroll would never see the inside of the Atlanta Penitentiary. "There is one law in this

country for the rich," he said, "and one law for the poor."

The question of Mr. Carroll's confinement may seem a simple matter to the National Government. Those, however, who remember the effect of the Morse scandal upon the Taft Administration and the reputation of Harry Daugherty may think that it would be politically wise for the Administration to make certain that no similar occurrence mars its record. Morse, it will be remembered, was pardoned by President Taft upon the recommendation of Daugherty, on the ground that he was in a dying con

A

dition. A release from prison promptly restored him to health, and he lived long enough to get into difficulties with the law again. President Coolidge himself might find it worth while to make a direct inquiry into the health of Earl Carroll and the reasons why the prison hospital at Atlanta is not adequate to care for his physical needs. It might not even require a Presidential inquiry to enable the Department of Justice to let the country know what it is doing with Earl Carroll and whether his term of imprisonment will expire before he gets within prison walls.

S a title for one of my recent articles in these pages I used the phrase "Flaming Youth." It

has elicited the following interesting letter from a firm in Detroit, Michigan, which is engaged in the useful business of book publishing and providing lecturers for lyceums:

Detroit, Michigan, May 31, 1927.

Dear Sir-You, like many other literary men, make use of some strik

ing phrase or literary mannerism coined by J. Hannibal Clancey in "The Law and Its Sorrows." But you have never been gracious enough to give that book any of your publicity, although a copy was sent The Outlook on November 22, 1922, for review.

Now where do you suppose you picked up the phrase "Flaming Youth" with which you have dec rated your very credible (sic) a in The Outlook? It may be th

saw it in a great electric sign over Broadway, or as the title of a very silly novel within the past three years, but if you will turn to page 233 of "The Law and Its Sorrows" you may read: "to further excite the flaming energies of youth," where it was used for the first time.

The book is full of epigrammatic thought, quirks, and conceits, quite generally used to-day with no credit to the author. . . .

Now what objection is there to giving this book the place in literature which it deserves?

Sincerely yours,

THE BENTHAM INSTITUTE.

No objection whatever; which is the reason why this letter is printed here. I suppose I "picked up the phrase 'Flaming Youth'" in a play called "Hamlet," written more than three centuries before "The Law and Its Sorrows" was published by the Bentham Institute.

The authorship of "Hamlet" is still res injudicata in the supreme court of literature, but it is commonly ascribed to one William Shakespeare. The phrase in "Hamlet," which I am accused of plagiarizing from Judge Clancey, appears in the following lines from Act III, Scene 4:

Rebellious hell, If thou canst mutine in a matron's bones,

To flaming youth let virtue be as wax, And melt in her own fire.

I recommend "Hamlet" to the proprietor of the Bentham Institute. In one respect it is comparable to "The Law and Its Sorrows;" to use the effective phraseology of the Bentham Institute, "Hamlet" "is full of epigrammatic thought, quirks, and conceits, quite generally used to-day with no credit to the author."

IN

N the unusually careful and accurate New York "Times" I find the following special despatch from Atlantic City:

ATLANTIC CITY, June 4.-The failure of prohibition enforcement was stressed by Edward F. Duffield, President of the Prudential Life Insurance Company, and William T. Read, retiring President of the New Jersey State Bar Association, at the annual spring meeting of the Bar Association at the Hotel Ambassador to-day.

Mr. Duffield characterized the enforcement of the dry law as little short of ridiculous and declared it was a failure primarily because it was impossible to legislate on morality. "Laws will never take the place of the theological in our social life," he said.

There is manifestly something wrong

But

about the hearing of the correspondent who sent this report. But if Mr. Duffield said that men cannot be made "moral" or "good" by statute he is entirely right. Truth, honesty, loyalty, decency, plain living, and high thinking cannot be instilled by law. The laws against murder and theft are not enacted for the purpose of teaching men the morality of the commands, "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not kill," but to protect society from those men who have no innate respect for property rights or the right to life. Doubtless there are many people who think that the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Law were enacted to promote total abstinence and to teach the immorality of drunkenness. this, I believe, is a mistaken view. Prohibition Amendment does not make it immoral to drink a glass of wine or a cocktail. It is simply the last, desperate effort of American society to protect itself against the liquor trade, which for a hundred years has been corrupt and lawless and has brutally resisted every attempt at reasonable control. Spitting is not an immoral act. There are times and places in which the finest hygienic laws require expectoration. But society has found that expectoration in public places is a menace, and so it has passed laws to criminally punish those who are not restrained from public expectoration by a natural sense of decency. Public expectoration has been outlawed; by the same token the liquor trade has been outlawed.

The

In reading the article in The Outlook of May 18 on "The Secondary School and Its Importance" I notice that you give to Dr. Arnold's discipline the verdict of the boys that he "was a beast, but a just beast."

I happen to know the whole story of that verdict, told me by Dr. Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, one morning when we were visiting at Lambeth Palace. It was really of Dr. Temple himself that that verdict was given. He told the tale in high gleeof the boy who wrote to his father about being called to the study of the "master," saying: "I can tell you, father, when I had the summons to the study I almost shook in my shoes, but then I thought, 'I know he is a beast, but he is a just beast,' and so it proved, for the punishment was not too bad."

The father of this boy was SO pleased with his son's letter that he sent it to Dr. Temple, who used to chuckle over the story each time he told it.

Dr. Temple was a product of Balliol, the Oxford college which has given so many notable men to the intellectual life of England. Like Jowett of Balliol, he was, because of his "sweet reasonableness," at one time suspected of heterodoxy, but, as one commentator puts it, "this distrust died away and he acquired a reputation for absolute justice and impartiality."

As Head Master of Rugby Dr. Temple fully lived up to the standards of education set up by Dr. Arnold. In 1869 Gladstone made him Bishop of Exeter; he was promoted to the see of London, and finally, when seventy-five years of age, became Archbishop of Canterbury, an office which for historical dignity and honor is hardly surpassed in Great Britain, not even by the Premiership. The two Archbishops of the Church of England are both Primates, but Canterbury is Primate of All England, while York is merely Primate of England. Thus the English, in characteristic fashion, get over the illogical but nevertheless very practical difficulties of social position and precedence. It would not do to have an episcopal controversy at a coronation, for instance. So it has been settled once and forever that the Primate of All England crowns the King, while the Primate of England must be contented with crowning the Queen-Consort. With the rapidly growing ascendency of women in Englandunder the magnetic influence of Lady Astor-I wonder what will happen when the queens are the rulers-in-chief and the kings simply consorts? But perhaps that is looking a little far into the future.

J

APAN'S acceptance of President Coolidge's invitation to the Arms Limitation Conference at Geneva reads much the same as her answer to President Harding's kindly message asking her to come to Washington in November, 1921. There is a difference between the spirit in which she came to Washington and the one in which she is heading for Geneva-a vast, an incredible difference.

And that difference is the one important thing with the Conference about to meet at Geneva-as far as America and Japan are concerned; as far as the future peace of the Pacific is involved.

Limiting the number and tonnage of cruisers and other secondary ships in the

at Geneva

By ADACHI KINNOSUKE

conscious of all the tar and feathers with which her enemy propagandists had so nicely dressed her up. She came to the Washington Conference thoroughly uncomfortable because of her mounting suspicions over the great American naval construction program of 1916.

And now? Nippon is going to Geneva at the invitation of another American President and for a similar conference.

But with what a change of heartwith what a difference in the national sentiment at home backing our Geneva delegation!

No nightmare of American war. Not a suspicion of American design!

AT

T the time of the Washington Conference the popular sentiment of Japan was convinced that America, with all her tremendous power thoroughly awakened through the World War and with her tremendous wealth amassed through the same European War, was making a thorough and unparalleled preparation for a mighty war against Japan; that she, America, might be the undisputed dictator of the destiny of Asia. Japan visioned herself crashed into the status of a subject state under the iron heels of America armed to the teeth. Is the picture funny to our gentle American reader? It wasn't a bit humorous to my Nipponese countrymen just about the time they came to Washington. Incidentally, this picture is not a particle more grotesque than that of a million yellow soldiers in the uniform of the Japanese army sweeping the Pacific slope of these United States with death and destruction-not a particle. And that precisely, as you may recall, was the picture quite a number of good and patriotic American citizens used to see just about the same time.

Japan came to Washington vividly

HENCE, then, all this profound difference? Japan's change of heart dates back to the Washington Conference. But not because the United States scrapped so many of her great capital ships built and building. The real reason the overwhelming reason which overcame all Japan's suspicions and converted her in spite of herselfwas elsewhere. It was in Article XIX of the Naval Armament Limitation Treaty:

"The United States, the British Empire, and Japan agree that the status quo at the time of the signing of the present Treaty, with regard to fortifications and naval bases, shall be maintained in their respective territories and possessions specified hereunder:

"(1) The insular possessions which the United States now holds or may hereafter acquire in the Pacific Ocean, except (a) those adjacent to the coast of the United States, Alaska, and the Panama Canal Zone, not including the Aleutian Islands, and (b) the Hawaiian Islands, etc."

to-day, America had no naval bases in that part of the world with docking, repairing, refueling facilities for her fighting fleet. And without such naval bases her great Armada would prove an expensive joke to herself; not at all a menace to Nippon's existence. In that pledge America spoke to Japan in the one way Japan could understand-in the only way Japan could not misunderstand her. What America said was simply that she had no idea of forcing a war against Japan. And Japan believed her without a touch of misgiving.

And that eliminated America from the black list of Japanese nightmares. And right there the hot tide of Japan's naval expansion fever met an Arctic current. Off and on, even after the Washington Conference, we have heard a few of our big-navy men and politicians make free with colorful adjectives and violent phrases. We do hear them even now occasionally. But about all they have managed to achieve is to get seasick in a typhoon of their own words. They cut about as impressive a figure as the famous knight charging a windmill. And they act as if they themselves have a sneaking suspicion of a generous contribution they are making to the gayety of nations.

A

s matters stand now, about the only tunes our big-navy men can play to get anything like a popular response, are the proposed Singapore naval base, the unspeakable turmoil in China, and the stab in the back from Soviet Russia. But, of course, China or Russia cannot threaten the sea power of Nippon for some few years to come. That leaves only the Singapore naval base and the steadily rising might of the great island continent of Australia.

The coming Geneva Conference should make this fact stand out in all its simple boldness as the one dominant factor in preserving the peace of the Pacific basin. If it does, then the cause of American-Japanese amity would gain tremendously. If only Nippon be happy enough to make the world in general and the United States in particular see this all-vital (and incidentally all-apparent) fact through the forthcoming Geneva Conference, she can afford to pat herself on the back even if she fail in all other