pictures as the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and the Saint Jerome in the Vatican. Minutely accurate measurements with delicate instruments established the individuality and identity of the marks on these pictures and on the lost da Vinci to the entire satisfaction of the experts.

The painting thus identified is supposed to be a Saint John; some of those who have seen it think that the face has a resemblance to the famous Mona Lisa. If this fascinating romance is generally accepted by the art world, we shall have the strange incident of a painter dead about four hundred years, yet now, as it were, claiming his own work by the mark of his own hand.

NOT WANTED

THE

HE public and the press have been emphatic in declaring that the "second chance" that should be given to a man whose notoriety was so flagrant and fragrant as Arbuckle's should be to make good in some other way than as licensed jester and entertainer for young and old.

This attitude of the people has been recognized by Mr. Will H. Hays, who first proposed the Christmas secondchance idea. Mr. Hays now points out that it is a mistake to regard him as a czar of the films, and declares: "I have removed the artificial situation of one man being or appearing to be the judge of such matters either for 110,000,000 people or for a great industry and art.” Mr. Hays is now of the opinion that "this is the kind of question that must be left finally to the judgment of the public, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to those who have business associations with the individual, and to the individual himself." He still wishes, and so do all of us, that Arbuckle should "go to work and make good if he can," but there are other ways than by doing comic stunts before audiences.

The Committee of Public Relations, an advisory board appointed to represent civic and religious organizations to cooperate with Mr. Hays, was not consulted by him before he did what newspaper headlines bombastically and incorrectly described as "lifting the ban" from Arbuckle. The Committee has declared:

In the judgment of the Committee, it would be extremely detrimental to the youth of America for Arbuckle's pictures to be released for circulation, since it is highly desirable that reminders which would naturally come with his reappearance on the screen should not be thus placed before the public. Such releases would also, in the opinion of the Committee, tend to destroy public confidence in the purpose of the motion-picture industry "to establish and maintain the highest possible moral and artistic standards

in motion-picture production and develop the educational as well as the entertainment value and general usefulness of motion pictures."

The Committee of Public Relations, therefore, recommends to Mr. Hays that he advise the motion-picture industry to refrain from exhibiting pictures in which Mr. Arbuckle appears, and that any consideration shown him as an individual should be along lines not involving his appearance before the public as a motion-picture actor.

E

BOLL WEEVILS AND BATTLESHIPS DITORS Who expound at length the articles they publish are in danger of being classified as tedious toastmasters, who do not know enough to let their

orators speak for themselves. There are two articles in this issue of The Outlook, however, which it may not be amiss to introduce with an editorial foreword. We speak of Mr. W. H. Kirkbride's article on "A Billion-Dollar Bandit" and Captain Overstreet's article on "Naval Strategy as Affected by Aircraft and Battleships." Let us take up his banditship, the boll weevil, first. damage done by this pest can hardly be exaggerated, but it should never be forgotten that there is another side to the story of the boll weevil, which has made its coming not wholly a hardship.

The

The South has been cursed with a onecrop system, which encouraged planters to mortgage their crops in advance and to exhaust their soils. The boll weevil, by destroying the comparative certainty of a definite cash return, has broken down the one-crop system, and forced farmers to diversify their crops and their agricultural industry. It has brought stock raising into regions where it was never known before. It has taught the value of leguminous cover crops, and has brought the South immeasurably nearer to a comprehension of scientific farming. One town, in gratitude to the boll weevil, has erected a monument in its honor. All of which bears witness to the old adage concerning clouds and their accompanying linings.

At first glance, Captain Overstreet's article on naval strategy may seem too technical for the enjoyment of the general reader. We suspect also that some of our subscribers may regard it as an incitement to an immediate attack upon Japan and England. We have observed even stranger misinterpretations of articles which have appeared in The Outlook than this. We think that the chief value of this article lies in the fact that the reader may gain from it a new comprehension of the training and technical proficiency which is needed to make out of a group of individual battleships and

subsidiary vessels of the air and water a fleet capable of being handled as a single unit. We think our readers will gain a new comprehension of the danger which lies in permitting Congress to let our fleet deteriorate as a fleet because of an inadequate personnel. It does not take long to train a private in the "school of a soldier," but the school of a battleship is something which cannot be compassed in a few brief weeks. "PEACE AND PROSPERITY IN IRELAND"

P

ROBABLY law and order will in time take the place of murder and retaliation in Southern Ireland, but the New Year's message of Mr. Cosgrave, head of the Free State Cabinet, in which he predicts for 1923 "the beginning of a new era of peace and prosperity in Ireland, making her children everywhere justly proud of their motherland," must be taken with the emphasis on the word "beginning.” At all events, on the same day Mr. Cosgrave gave to the press a statement in which he said that the former policy of leniency had failed and that stern measures to repress disorder must be taken. Accordingly, we read in the despatches of the recent execution of seven more rebels against the Free State, making nineteen executions in the month, all but one, we believe, of persons found with arms in their possession. On the other hand, we read also of ambushes, attacks on railway traffic, armed robberies, attacks on banks, and, again in Mr. Cosgrave's words, "deliberate murder of unarmed soldiers or civilians."

Bad as all this sounds, it is probably true that the percentage of men actually striving to break down the Free State by violence is extremely small as compared with the whole population-Mr. Cosgrave asserts that the Government is representative of ninety-eight per cent of the people. If this is so, it will in the end prevail, and it is not unreasonable to hope that Ireland will become as peaceful as Canada is under a Dominion rule almost exactly like that of Ireland. FOR A SAFE AND SANE IRELAND

IR HORACE PLUNKETT, now in America, represents the moderate, reasonable, and conciliatory view of Irish affairs. He is the originator of the agricultural co-operative system in Ireland. "Better farms, better business, better living," is its motto. A particularly hateful form of Irish "agitation" has been the burning of barns and killing of cattle belong. ing to this valuable industrial development, the most democratic institution, Sir Horace declares, that Ireland had under English rule.

Under the Free State, as violence dies

down there is hope for Ireland in the co-operative idea. Possibly some day even American farmers may learn from it things worth while. Meanwhile Sir Horace, now a Senator of the Free State, comes to America, as he has done before, to learn new farming methods and study out the best agricultural future policy for his own country.

As to the political situation, Sir Horace said to reporters on his arrival:

It is impossible to say when peace will come to Ireland, but my firm belief is that the vast majority of the Irish people earnestly desire the treaty and the Constitution founded upon it to be upheld. Nobody in this world gets everything they want.

What Ireland wants most is unity, and the only way to bring that about now is to have unity in the twentysix counties first, set up a stable government there, and then negotiate with the six counties left out.

This is the hope of all friends of Ireland. It should mean more production and less destruction.

THE NEW CRISIS IN

B

EUROPE

EFORE this number reaches its readers, unless something unexpected happens, French officials supported by French troops will have entered the German city of Essen in order to collect profits on German industries and customs on German exports as productive guaranties for the payment. of reparations.

In doing this France has the active support of two of her allies-Belgium and Italy.

Contrary to a widespread impression created by the opponents of French policy, and particularly by despatches from Germany, this act of France cannot legally be regarded as an act of war. It is not an attempt to introduce a new element of force. It is simply the employment of forceful means already accepted as a part of the peace terms.

This is made plain by the following provision (Part VIII, Annex II, Paragraph 18) in the Treaty of Versailles (the italics are ours):

The measures which the Allied and Associated Powers shall have the right to take, in case of voluntary default by Germany, and which Germany agrees not to regard as acts of war, may include economic and financial prohibitions and reprisals and in general such other measures as the respective Governments may determine to be necessary in the circumstances.

In the paragraph preceding this it is provided that the Reparations Commis

sion shall give notice to the interested parties in the case of default by Germany in the performance of her reparation obligation. Already the Reparation Commission, by a vote of three to one, in which Great Britain constituted the minority, reported that Germany was in voluntary default in furnishing the required amount of timber, and again by the same vote it now finds that Germany is in voluntary default in the delivery of coal. And it is universally expected that the Commission will find Germany in default in cash payments when the time of the moratorium granted to her expires on January 15.

France, therefore, is not violating the Treaty of Versailles, but is observing it. France is, moreover, not isolated. It

is Great Britain rather that is isolated. Belgian troops are acting with French troops and Belgian and Italian officials are acting with French officials.

IS IT GOOD MORALS? Legally, therefore, France has a case which appears to be hard to impugn.

The question nevertheless remains whether this so-called invasion of the Ruhr Valley can be morally justified, or defended as expedient.

Whether it is an act of good international morals depends upon France, Belgium, and Italy's spirit and purpose. In all such action there are mixed purposes. Undoubtedly there are elements of political intrigue, military adventure, and commercial greed in this act. It would be hard to find any international action in which such elements were not to be found. To attribute to such purposes as these all the force behind the action of the three allies is, we believe, to make a serious error in judgment and in understanding three great peoples. We must recognize that the Government of France, for instance, has a prime duty to the French people. It is the business

of that Government to see that, so far as it is able, the people of France have justice. It has no right to make any other concessions to the German people at the expense of the French people than any other trustee has to make concessions at the expense of his ward. The French people believe that there is a just debt due them from Germany for the destruction of a vast area of France. Walker D. Hines, who has had an opportunity to be familiar with European affairs, and does not hesitate to speak of the French policy as nationalistic, selfish, and shortsighted, and is therefore not a partisan of France, has stated the French case in a recent speech as follows:

Mr.

France has had a paramount need for prompt payment by Germany of an ample indemnity. England has appeared to have a greater need for a prosperous Germany with which to trade. The French firmly believe that England got by far the best of the peace settlement. They say their interest was primarily in reparations and security and they got neither. while England's interest in security was obtained at the outset of the peace by the surrender of the German navy, and England's principal interest, that of commerce, was secured through taking away Germany's merchant marine and the German colonies. Whenever England now suggests that France make a concession to Germany, the French public man is likely to charge that that is simply to help Germany, so it can make a better market for English commerce.

In France Germany's treaty obligation to pay reparation is regarded as a solemn debt. France is asked to waive a large part of it. It is easy to see that a French political leader lays himself open to attack if he proposes to waive in large part the war debt which is due to France without getting any waiver in return of the war debt due by France to England and the United States.

If this is a selfish and short-sighted policy, America's policy is also, as Mr. Hines points out. There seems, however, an element of justice at least in the claim that Germany can and ought to do what France can do, and, in fact, has done. For the destruction wrought in France, inconceivable to those who have not seen it with their own eyes, the French people have themselves already paid. Is it just or unjust on the part of the French to urge that they be repaid for this by those who wrought the destruction? To say that Germany cannot pay for this is to say that the Germans cannot do what the French have done, that what has been proved possible for thirty-seven million people to do is impossible for a country of sixty million and more to do. Even so hardheaded German as Stinnes, the German trust king, recognizes the justice of this demand. He even recognizes that

it is just from the German point of view. In a speech made a few weeks ago and published in translation in the "Living Age" Stinnes said:

Although know that I am unable, with my own resources, to rebuild the devastated regions, I am none the less convinced that this task must take precedence, and cannot be evaded. In my opinion, they would long since have been completely rebuilt if we had been the victors in the war, for I take it that any victorious nation would unquestionably get rid at once of the incubus of such a chaos of wreck and ruin. That territory must be rebuilt, if merely for psychological reasons. The millions of people who are now living there, under intolerable conditions, must be conciliated and made contented. Otherwise, I do not expect to see the country to which they belong recover its sanity and reason.

He would, it is true, apparently confine the rebuilding to merely human habitations, leaving the French to struggle with their dismantled and destroyed industries alone, under the handicap which the Germans, whether suffering military defeat or not, undertook to place and have so far succeeded in placing upon France. He would, it is true, apparently direct what France and Britain should do with the reparation payments that they receive. Nevertheless this German industrialist frankly acknowledges that Germany has not even begun to pay what she can pay and ought to pay, and that she is bringing ruin upon herself not to see that.

If justice requires reparation, it justifies the enforcement of it.

It is reported that the French Government proposes to send in cheap food for the German workers in the Ruhr Valley and to provide for them higher wages than they have been receiving. It has announced its intention of doing everything possible to avoid offense to the inhabitants of the region. If these reports are true and the purposes lived up to, there will be evidence that the spirit of the French, Belgians, and Italians is that of good will.

IS IT EXPEDIENT?

Even though the action of France, Italy, and Belgium in taking possession of Essen is legal and morally justifiable, the question remains whether it is expedient.

Certainly the alternative of allowing Germany to default without penalty or guaranty has proved productive of neither reparations nor good will.

If France had taken possession of the Ruhr Valley two years ago, it is hard to believe that she would have incurred more ill will in Germany or more criticism in England and America than she has already incurred by a policy of pa

tience and postponement. France has made the mistake that politicians often make for their countries, of threatening without acting.

When Britain, at a conference of Prime Ministers in Paris, proposed a policy that met further ultimate reduction of reparations and further postponement without productive guaranties, there was little to commend to France the continuance of the old experiment. It is not surprising that the conference came to an end with Britain on the one side and France, Belgium, and Italy on the other.

When, therefore, it is asked whether the new procedure is expedient it is appropriate to ask in return, "Expedient for whom?" Undoubtedly the procedure now undertaken is inexpedient for England, and there are people in America who believe that it is not expedient for this country. As between England and France our Government is rightly refusing to take sides. It would seem like taking sides for the Administration to accept the opinion of the Senate expressed in their resolution that the few American soldiers who now occupy the region in Germany should be withdrawn. To take these soldiers away would be interpreted as a rebuke to France. We have a right to keep those soldiers there under our treaty with Germany, which enables us to act jointly with our allies under the Treaty of Versailles. So far as our Government is concerned, therefore, there is no occasion for approval or disapproval of French or British policy. And if we are not in a position either to approve or disapprove directly we ought not to attempt to do so indirectly.

CAN AMERICA DO ANYTHING?

Since the United States Government has neither the opportunity nor the moral right to attempt to influence policies of European Governments concerning political measures they may take for the enforcement of their rights, can it do anything that will be helpful?

Apparently the Administration believes that it can. Indeed, the Secretary of State has already transmitted to Europe a proposal for a conference of experts to be appointed by the several Governments to examine the conditions and ascertain the facts which affect the present economic situation.

This is not an attempt to interfere with political measures of any country. It is not an attempt to substitute an economic policy for a political one. It is, as we understand it, an attempt to separate the economic factors in the situation from the others and to see what can be done with them.

Here we have rights and interests.