a misstep in foreign aggression should have welded the German nation together at this time.

"As to the German future, the present Government has been steering a selfrespecting middle course between the reactionaries at the one extreme and the Communists at the other. That a Re publican Government in Germany should stand the strain as long as it has augurs well for its continuance. But Republican France is not helping Republican Germany to continue. While the people here as a whole are grateful for a deliverance from old-time monarchic and bureaucratic despotism, they long for something more tangible as an evidence of law and order than is the present Government, good as it is. While they will not return to the historic monarchy, the present French pressure is helping the monarchist cause just the same. Many, probably most, Germans think of it as signifying the greater strength of resistance. Hence the Germans are likely to abandon government under a president for a royal constitutional state, as we understand it in England, where the sovereign reigns but does not govern. What they really long for is a symbol of sovereignty and strength. They do not find it in President Ebert. Strange as it may seem to you, they would be more likely to find it in a mere boy, the son of the Crown Prince. Again, your German loves display; he likes orders and decorations and patents of official station and the aristocracy and the nobility, and these all lead to a king rather than to a president. Most of all, the German is naturally docile and dependent on something or somebody higher than himself. This is the state, and of course it can be symbolized by a president as well as by a king. But a changing president, as in Switzerland or France or America, does not represent the continuity of executive power. Certainly he does not represent the continuity of what you might call the human document, and this is emphasized by such a royal family as ours. For these reasons, therefore, most Germans will ultimately be found, we think, favoring a democratic government with a king, not a president, at its head.

"There is still a strong disposition in Germany to think that the real victory in the late war does not, after all, lie with the French, but with uninvaded Germany. This feeling has been accentuated by German success in evading treaty provisions since the armistice. Present French pressure on the Ruhr may succeed or fail, but at least it should teach Germany one thing, and that is that she was really beaten in the

war.

"You find here a curious German mentality. It resists your assumption that the Germans have not won the war. The truth will have to be beaten into that mind before you can awaken the German soul to any possible penitence for having caused the war. In our four years of service in the Rhineland we

have met no native man enough to say he was sorry that Germany had caused the war, not even open-minded enough to admit that Germany really had caused the war. These people still believe the unconfirmed report that, on August 1, 1914, the Russians crossed the German border and committed deeds of war in three places. The Germans actually maintain that they won the war because they preserved their Fatherland from invasion! When you ask them if the sight of us and the Belgians and the French along the Rhine means their victory, they reply that it merely signifies a temporary check to Germans on foreign soil, and that they would not have ceased fighting but for the Communists' strike at home. Oh, they are mighty poor sports; they are mighty poor losers!

"But do not blame them too much. In a number of respects they are still about two hundred years behind the times. If they had a wholesome outdoor life, it would do their minds and souls good. Fortunately, they are now going in notably for outdoor sports. This is especially noticeable in our occupied area, and we like to think that our example has been worth something in this regard to the German people.

"No matter what the national differences,.the British want to see fair play in Germany, just as anywhere else. In the first place, it is not fair to invade the Ruhr as the French have done under the pretext of making good a ten per cent lack in coal deliveries and 135,000 telegraph poles in wood deliveries on the reparations account. Certainly it is not fair for the French to levy a 100,000,000-mark tribute on the town of Gelsenkirchen, as they did the other day. This was refused. The French. occupied the place, found 110,000,000 marks in the bank, and took the same. By the way, it was also at Gelsenkirchen, was it not, where the French would not allow a film operator to make a picture of their forces charging the German mob? If the French are sure of their methods, why this caution? the other hand, there is much to be said for the French. They have shown notable patience, especially in their reluctance to visit the death penalty on saboteurs convicted by their courts martial.

On

"On the economic side, the arbitrary imposition of ten per cent duties on the Ruhr exports and imports strikes not only at the Germans in general but jolly well at the British in particular. Result, stoppage of business. For instance, at the Krupp works in Essen day before yesterday you had the spectacle of completed locomotive machinery under sublet contract from a firm in Switzerland, which, in turn, had a sublet contract from an English firm. These Krupp locomotives were ready for shipment to South Africa, but could not be delivered because the French had imposed their ten per cent duty and the British would not pay it. Again, at Düsseldorf, where you were, two days

before you went to Essen a British firm had made a deposit of £1,500. It was desired to transfer this deposit to Cologne. Did the French, in command at Düsseldorf, allow the transfer to the British, in command at Cologne? No, indeed-except by paying 150 quid. So we are not to be treated as the French and Belgians treat themselves; we are to be treated as they treat the Germans! When we put this up to the French, they say, 'You are not participating in the Ruhr operations. You cannot expect to have your share of whatever profits there may prove to be, either now or later.'

"They will go you one better. When you ask them what they will do if actual war breaks out, you will very likely hear something like this: 'We will go to Berlin, where we all ought to have gone in 1918. We will force a new treaty on Germany, supplementary to the Treaty of Versailles and inde pendently of you.' In our opinion, if the French ever get to Berlin, they will find no German Government there with which they can do business. In the second place, their new treaty could not supplement the Versailles Treaty because no final reparations settlement can be made except with the full consent of all the Powers represented on the Reparation Commission.

"In our opinion, the 'forwards' in France are overplaying their hand. Their organs are now proposing the establishment of a permanent or quasipermanent Interallied organism to control the Rhenish and Ruhr railways as a guaranty of French military se curity. In our opinion, such an organism would be nothing but annexation in disguise.

"After all, the whole Ruhr question is primarily economic. Lloyd George saw this long ago, but very likely he went too far in favoring Germany. He proposed a topping plan, we thought, but it was perhaps a too Germanized English policy. Now we do not want to go to the other extreme. We want to strike the golden mean. After 1870, when Germany had won Alsace and Lorraine, she was impregnable economically, because she controlled the coal of the Ruhr together with the iron ore of Lorraine. As also a great steel and iron producer, Germany rivaled England in the world market. Then came the World War, the German reversal, and the Versailles Treaty. It is mostly a political treaty. As such it did a number of economic wrongs. For instance, it ran the new Hungarian border be tween a mine and the neighboring large factory directly dependent on that mine. Still more strikingly it separated the Ruhr coal fields from the Lorraine ore fields. Of course as spoils of war France had to have Lorraine back, but the economic error was there just the same. What can be done now? It looks to some of us as if France wants to possess the Ruhr too in the effort to be the economic as well as the military monWell, arch that Germany once was.

take it from us, Germany will never consent to alienate the Ruhr.

"Would she consent to a compromise, iz we ask-the internationalization of the Ruhr region until all reparations are paid? The administration of the region Et would be in the hands of an international board of receivers, having the authority of receivers in England or The G America for any bankrupt concern. They would appoint a managing director and the necessary staff. They would mine coal and sell it in the open market with equal rights of competition.

The dividends earned would be distributed proportionately as reparations, the Allies at the outset having fixed a reasonable sum as the amount of such reparations. We say that this plan would certainly be better for all concerned than is the present French occupation. Of course the German mine owners, resist

ing the present occupation, would probably also object to this solution. However, the German Government could compensate the mine owners as it did the ship owners after the war.

"Germany would gain two things by this plan: first, freedom from occupation; second, an incentive to work harmoniously and faithfully with the Allies for debt liquidation. France would also gain two things: namely, security, her primal need; and reparations, her secondary need. Her security would now be guaranteed by an international control. Finally, England would gain, for there would be no danger of French monopoly of Ruhr coal and Lorraine ore. You may think that this is the real reason for proposing it, but the motive was just as much for the good of Germany and the good of France as for the good of England.

"Suppose this plan is turned down. No matter what solution is proposed, ultimately Germany will have to enter into some kind of negotiation with France. If 'eventually, why not now?' as one of your sign-boards says over in the States. The German Parliament and the German Government will have to take some action-the force of facts will compel them. In our opinion, this action should be a guaranty in the form of mortgages on agricultural estates and on mines and industries, offered by German agricultural and industrial magnates, as a basis for reparation. Were this done, you would have a proper starting-point for negotiations.

"Our advice to the Germans is to take the initiative in this rather than wait for the French to do so. They will!" Marienburg, Rhenish Prussia, February 24, 1923.

C

RAGS and canyons, mountains and deserts, silence of the night, storms wild and thunderous, horses, cow-punchers, and the last of that vanishing race of Indians-these have been the themes of the Western painter, Frank Tenney Johnson, who' has just been awarded the thousanddollar Shaw Purchase Prize for 1923 at the Salmagundi Club in New York City.

The prize picture, "A Wanderer," a study in oils, is a night scene, showing a rugged Mexican wanderer just stealing away from a lamplit adobe inn, a laden burro beside him. This picture breathes the romance of that Southwestern desert country.

Johnson's colors and settings show a keen observation and a close study of his subjects, yet they maintain a breadth and a simplicity of technique. They are full of imagination, yet never fanciful. They might almost be called historical documents.

Many believe that no one has ever depicted the real Mexican, not only in out ward appearance, but also psychologically, as well as he. Mr. Johnson's works are convincing because he paints the life that he has lived and known. All of his material is drawn from his rich store of first-hand experience in that Western country where he was born and where he lived most of his life.

His father was a breeder of cattle in then untamed Iowa, and Johnson was born upon the open range of that country. During his boyhood he followed the breaking plow in spring, herded cattle in summer, hunted and trapped along the Nisha Botna in the fall, bucked the winter blizzards, and watched with keen observant eyes the straining muscles of

FRANK TENNEY JOHNSON

the horses as the old stage-coach, the last of its kind, lumbered over the Overland Trail on its way to Council Bluffs.

Later Johnson adventured farther West and into Mexico. During all of those years the artistic impulse was strong within him. He sketched and painted incessantly, and tales are told of how the young cow-puncher, suddenly missing from the chase, would be found far in the rear with canvas and brush capturing the last great splendor of the setting sun.

Ambition finally lured him East to the New York School of Art, where with big enthusiasm and a scant purse he worked and studied faithfully, living in a room without heat and eating as he

could. F. W. Heinie and the famous Western painter and Texas ranger Richard Lorenz were among his first instructors.

From the very beginning his pictures had wide appeal, and Johnson became one of the most popular of the younger painters. But, in spite of advancing reputation, Johnson has never lost touch with his motherland. Each year he makes a pilgrimage West in his own car, which he personally equipped for camping and sketching. He lives and works in the open, and there his best work is done.

"A Wanderer," mentioned above, is one of a series of paintings which the artist recently made in Juarez, Mexico, a town just across from El Paso, the region of Villa's one-time sprightly raids. Others of this series are "Beneath the Southern Moon," "A Mexican Smuggler," and "In the Moon's Soft Glow"-all of which are on exhibition now in various New York galleries. Johnson's night scenes are particularly noteworthy for their depiction of moonlight.

Johnson knows the West of yesterday and the West of to-day. For him the plains are rich with ghosts of prairie schooners, Indians, pack animals, and all the dim figures of the passing West. Always in his work there is a poetic depth of memory, a thrill of that old and virile West he loved. He paints the West of to-day with some rich, intangible hint of yesterday in the brilliant strokes of his brush. To the sensitive eye the moonlight for which he is famed is peopled with misty figures of the past, plodding over miles of rolling prairie, mountain trail, and rocky canyon. Magically on his canvas past and present mingle.

C

SAMUEL GOMPERS

cannot, however, of itself secure to the people a steady, adequate, and inexpensive coal supply. Even the people's representatives, in acting on the information and recommen dations of that Commission, will not, and ought not, to act contrary to the opinion and will of the people.

In order to ascertain what leaders of public opinion in this country think about the problem, and in order to do something to promote thinking about it generally, The Outlook has asked a number of men widely representative of various callings, interests, and sections of the country to express their views.

Last week we printed two articles on the subject-one by an officer of the United Mine Workers, C. J. Golden, advocating nationalization of the mines, the other by John Spargo, an authority on Socialism and for many years a member of the Socialist party, opposing nationalization.

Here we print twelve letters, selected from many more that have been written to us in response to our request. Editorial comment on the subject of these letters will be found on another page.-THE EDITORS.

For over forty years President of the American Federation of Labor, of which he was one of the founders, and editor of the

ist," Mr. Gompers, а native of England who has been a resident in America since boyhood and one of the most prominent of American citizens, has attained a position in the labor movement surpassed in distinction by no one else in the world.

(C) Harns & Ewing

IT

American Federation of Labor,
Washington, D. C.

T is difficult to put into the scope of a letter anything that will be really adequate in dealing with the coal situation. To present properly what I have in mind in relation to the coal situation would require considerable time and much more space than I can conveniently consume in a letter at this time.

Permit me to say at the outset that I do not regard Government ownership of the mines as necessary to a sane operation of the mining industry. I am inclined to the belief that a proper organization of the mining industry on both sides and a proper collaboration of both organized owners and organized workers in the mining industry would result in the elimination of practically every evil from which the industry now. suffers.

Of course you have seen the first reports of the conclusions reached by the President's Fact-Finding Commission. Let me call your attention to the statement of this Commission wherein it is said that the charges levied by transportation wholesalers and retailers are greater than the cost of producing coal at the mine. The Commission also bitterly condemns profiteering.

responsible for the high cost of coal to the consuming public. An adequate wage can be paid and the necessary costs of distribution can be covered by a charge to the consumer that will be fair but not exorbitant.

The miners' wages and conditions are no higher now than they were before the five-month strike beginning April 1, 1922. The strike was against reduction of wages and lowering of standards, and therefore the increased prices of coal cannot be attributed to any increasing of wages or improved conditions of the miners.

Of course it is commonly understood that the coal industry is one of the most poorly organized in the country, and one in which there is much suspicion between various groups. I am speaking of course of the mine owners. It is an industry also in which the sense of obligation to the public has been least developed. The cartoonist conception of the plundering plutocrat applies perhaps more aptly to the coal-mine owners of the United States than to any other group of industrial magnates. They are to a larger extent suspicious of each other and, I think, to a larger extent imbued with the sole idea of getting all they can at as little cost as possible.

Of course we shall all be interested in the final conclusions of the Fact-Finding Commission, but, whatever those conclusions may be, I am satisfied as a result of my own observations that it will be far better even to suffer some continued abuse. in the coal industry

than to resort precipitately to nationali. zation or Government ownership.

It is my conviction that a proper organization of the mining industry will result in the elimination of many abuses which are now so painfully manifest. I prefer seeking remedy in this direction, even though the road be longer, to seek ing remedy through Government ownership, which I know to be full of pitfalls and which I cannot contemplate as a permanent, constructive solution of the coal situation. The problem is a serious one, and it is of tremendous proportions.

For my part, I shall never feel that the door is closed to new information, but I have written you frankly as to the state of my feeling on the information I now possess.

SAMUEL GOMPERS,

President,

American Federation of Labor.

J. G. BRADLEY

President of the Elk River Coal and Lumber Company and of the West Virginia Coal Association and succeeded by Mr. A. M Ogle in May, 1922, as President of the National Coal Association "a typical example of the West Virginia nonunion operator," to use his own words, "whose forefathers were workingmen, one of whose ancestors was a member of Mr. Lincoln's Cablnet and another was on the Supreme Court," Mr. Bradley has had a large experience as an operator, takes pride in the relations which he had with the men working in the mines which his company owns, and has discussed aspects of the coal problem in speeches and pamphlets

(C) Harris & Ewing

Elk River Coal and Lumber Company, Dundon, West Virginia. HERE ought not to be any uncer soft coal.

to supply of

Hard coal is in a separate