September 7, 1927

thoroughly familiar with its past record and its consistent stand for right and justice, regardless of wealth, power, or social position, I cannot but view with regret this radical change in its policies.

A

I am afraid The Outlook must be included (only so far as the Sacco-Vanzetti case is concerned) among those whom you describe in your last editorial --"Even in this country there are some

17

more accustomed to speaking and writing than they are to thinking."

HENRY F. SCHWARZ.
Toland, Trimble & Co.,
Members of

Philadelphia and New York Stock Exchanges,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

S this is written the evening papers announce that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has refused to interfere with the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti, and I am delighted to note that this Court has had the courage to decide this matter according to the law, and that this, like other great courts in our land, is not going to be deterred from doing its duty and that trial by bomb, bombast, bullying, and ballyhoo shall not be permitted in this land of ours.

It has been my privilege to read pretty much everything that has been. sent out by the Associated Press, and even other news agencies, concerning this very much discussed case.

I have also read Professor Felix Frankfurter's "The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti" (Little, Brown & Co., 1927), and I read with exceeding interest the entire report of the commission appointed by Governor Alvan T. Fuller, of Massachusetts.

There has been a great deal of special and specious pleading urged in behalf of these two murderers (for I am accepting the verdict of the jury and the final decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts when I thus designate them), and the case has attracted much more attention than its importance warranted.

We have here two men who upon the witness-stand admitted that they were Anarchists, enemies of our Government, and who had disseminated literature, and possibly spoken openly as well (at least one of them so admitted), against our Government and its functions, while at the same time claiming the right to be tried in our courts, but who have not been willing to abide by its decisions, because they claim they have been treated unfairly. When they accepted the valuable privileges of free speech and peaceful surroundings and protection offered by the Government to which they were opposed, did they think they were unfairly treated? Had they any greater right to commit murder and robbery than any one else?

The commission has found, and looking at the matter from a purely legal standpoint-and as a former member of the bench as well as an active member of the bar-there was ample evidence upon which the jury might find a conviction.

It appeared in the case quite clearly that from the defendants' own testimony --for their attorneys deemed it wise to permit them to become witnesses in their own defense and behalf-they were Anarchists and that they had an antipathy to our form of government and our mode of doing things. Must such men be believed in preference to law-abiding citizens?

Coupled with that fact it also appeared from some testimony, at least, which the jury had a right to believe, and did consider, that the identification of these defendants was complete. The jury also had a right to conclude that the alibis attempted to be shown in their behalf had failed. There was evidence that the pistol which was used, at least by Sacco, was the one which he owned and from which the bullets were fired, and if the statement of Major Calvin H. Goddard is correct, he, a perfectly disinterested person, of manifest intelligence and experience, proves unequivocally that the exploded shells were the ones which came from Sacco's pistol.

Without pretending to review the various pieces of evidence which when fitted together pointed directly at these two defendants as the murderers, the point I am stressing is, that in this case, as in many others, a conviction was had upon sufficient evidence, but if you can retry a case after a conviction has been affirmed by the court of last resort, when will there be an end to any case?

I happen to have had a personal acquaintance with the attorney who first represented them, and who started his legal experience in the city of Spokane, Washington, as the attorney for the I. W. W.'s, and who continued in the work of defending these semi-criminals and in some instances active criminals, and from his knowledge and experience gained in that practice he ought to have had sufficient ability to take care of every legal right of these defendants and to safeguard them thoroughly as to a fair and legal trial.

It is further reported by the commission that the presiding Judge made no comments upon the trial to which exception could be taken, but that he commented upon the evidence and verdict after the trial.

In an experience extending over the trial of all kinds of civil and criminal cases for upwards of forty-five years, this is the first time that I have ever heard anybody attempt to secure a new trial after a court of last resort has passed upon all the legal questions involved because of any comments made by the trial judge after the verdict.

Judges are human, and very naturally express themselves as to whether or not a conviction was justified. They often do it from the bench when motions for a new trial are made or sentence is imposed, and there is no reason why they should not do so when off the bench and after the trial is over. They have the right to their opinion as to what, in their judgment, the evidence proved. In other countries the courts do not hesitate from the bench during the trial to give opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, or as to whether or not a witness is telling the truth, but in some of our States-I think unfortunately-the court is not allowed to comment upon the testimony during the trial. Great Britain and other countries give their criminals as fair a trial, if not fairer, than we do. They certainly elicit the facts and do not encourage hiding them behind technicalities.

I have been amazed at the ignorance of the facts as adduced upon the trial, and of the law as administered, both by the trial and appellate court, on the part of some of the lawyers who have criticised this decision, and especially of laymen who have not even taken the time to read the report of the commission or to know what facts were elicited at the trial. Lawyers of more than ordinary intelligence have refused to accept the facts as found by the commission. When asked why, they say it was unfair and represented the capitalistic class. And they call themselves "lawyers."

Because of a most unfortunate delay in the final hearing and the decision in this case, a semblance of an excuse has been given the defendants' sympathizers, who have renewed the slumbering fires. of parlor Socialism, street-corner anarchism, and capital hatred, with all its amplifications, and a great deal of -unfounded and unjustifiable criticism and comment has resulted.

Some years ago Professor Frankfurter

18

appeared in a very celebrated case at Rochester, New York, where a large clothing firm was suing a labor union for damages caused by a strike, called not by reason of any differences of the employers with their own laborers, but because of a controversy between two unions.

He was unsuccessful in that case, but it and other cases in which he appeared and comments in which he has indulged make me think that Professor Frankfurter is so steeped in what he thinks are the wrongs of the laboring people that he has lost his perspective of what is right and fair, and has therefore done. what any technical or theoretical lawyer can do find the weaknesses or flaws in any trial, and yet overlook the main facts and the main controversy. In a criminal trial which lasts a number of days and where much of the evidence. must be circumstantial and technical, and where many rulings are made, any lawyer of average ability can take the record and point out discrepancies, and even possible errors, but these will not necessarily destroy all other testimony which may have been given, nor other rulings which may have been made, nor will they bring about an unfair or illegal trial,

From the very beginning of the publicity in this case (much of which, I think, has been carefully prepared and

P

most wonderfully exploited) our newspapers have paid altogether too much attention to its importance. Hundreds of men have been convicted and sentenced on evidence very much weaker than appeared in this case, and there has not been the hullabaloo which for some unaccountable reason has been created in this case. Even our reputable newspapers have lent themselves to extravagant headlines and over-conspicuousness in printing its features. I know of newspapers which on the afternoon of President Coolidge's succinct announcement that he would not choose to be a candidate for President in 1928 gave that most important news item a very few inches of space and headline, causing it to be entirely dwarfed by the greater publicity given to the activities in behalf of Sacco and Vanzetti.

In my own community, where I am constantly meeting lawyers at lunch and Bar Association meetings, and other places in and out of court, I have been amazed at the ignorance displayed by members of my own profession of the actual facts upon which these convictions were founded, and of the further fact that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, under the laws of that State, cannot pass upon the facts, but can only decide whether or not on questions of law the trial court was correct. Such lawyers, like many others have come to

The Outlook for

the conclusion that because of the long delay of the ultimate decision of this case there must of necessity have been something wrong in the trial and which was inimical to the rights of the defendants.

Several decades ago one of the ablest judges of the Supreme Court of the United States wrote an opinion in a case where two factions sought to control the destinies of a large and wealthy Presbyterian church. As a result one faction seceded and attempted to secure to itself some of the very valuable real estate which the church owned.

The Court held up the decision for a year, and the writer of the opinion said he had done this in the hope that these factions would manifest a greater "Christian" spirit and quit their quarreling and conclude to remain together.

It might be well if a little more Christian spirit were manifested towards the members of our judiciary, who are not all crooked and biased; and to the members of juries who have the disagreeable task of deciding murder cases, and who are not all prejudiced and unfair; and to members of a commission who reluctantly assume a task as uninviting as confronted them in the instant case. SAMUEL R. STERN, Formerly Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Washington.

Seattle, Washington.

ICTURES of President Coolidge, the taciturn, the silent, the restrained New Englander, attired in chaps and sombrero; stories about President Coolidge and his worms and trout; gifts to President Coolidge of bucking broncos and chocolate birthday cakes-what godsends all these items are for the novelty-seeking reporters and the Sunday rotogravure sections, and how droll they seem to our French friends across the water!

IF France is awakening to-day to the

F France is awakening to-day to the advantages of publicity, the awakening is a slow and spasmodic process, for the Frenchman is, first, too individualistic to care to indulge in personal advertising, and, secondly, too conservative in the adoption of new business methods to realize the advantages which may accrue from talking cleverly enough about one's self or one's products.

The French newspaper is always six pages in content. This never varies, on Sunday or any other day. There is no

By GOLDA M. GOLDMAN

such thing as a personality column. Occasionally a photograph will show Mistinguett, of the Moulin Rouge Music Hall, wading on the beach at Deauville. That is really getting very intimate for the newspaper.

The writer who has done interviews and special-feature articles in both the United States and France finds himself obliged to use absolutely different tactics in the two countries. The contrasts are, without doubt, best illustrated autobiographically, so I will indulge in a few personal reminiscences of my experiences in gathering copy in Paris.

I came over a year ago with orders from several American radio magazines . for articles on the big Paris stations. Two of these were Government-owned, and two were private property. Through the introduction of a French journalist, I was given an appointment at the station of the Petit Parisien one afternoon, but, to my amazement, found that no broadcasting was in process and that I was to be shown only the power rooms.

To my explanation that I wished to see the studio in operation, and to have photographs, etc., the engineer replied firmly that no visitors were ever admitted. I finally obtained an interview with the announcer, who, after much discussion, agreed that I might come to the studio during a performance if I would write the article as though I had not been there! I agreed to this extraordinary request, and called at the appointed time. My promise was quite unnecessary, as heavy draperies were drawn between me and the artists, so that I sat entirely alone in a big room, and saw nothing at all. I might just as well have listened in from the United States. At Radio Paris, the largest of the French stations, the director answered questions in monosyllables and regarded me with absolute suspicion. To both of these large private organizations, which maintained posts at great expense for publicity nurposes, it was absolutely inconceivable that the American public actually was interested in biographical notes about

20

had just been commercialized. As these establishments were now putting their goods on the public market, it was to their entire advantage to see that the articles were correct and well illustrated. The director of the Sèvres factory was exceptional. All that was necessary was immediately forthcoming. At the Gobelin factory the Chief of the Interior, charged with providing me with illustrations, never even responded to my letter, and when telephoned to on the day the article was due declared that no facilities for publicity existed, and finally rang off in disgust at my importunities. I was forced to borrow the photographs from a private publishing company. At Beauvais the director could not be convinced through a lengthy and explicit correspondence of the necessity of responding to a very simple questionnaire, nor did he ever send one picture. I bought my photographs in Paris, and "Foreign Trade" had to pay for the reproduction rights.

It is extraordinary how this general inability to utilize the simple forms of propaganda is current in France. It is not confined to any one class or type of organization. If I read in the news that the University of Louvain, in Belgium, is going to have an anniversary, and write the secretary for material and photographs, pictures and pamphlets are in my hands in a week. Although I have done a dozen articles on the Sorbonne in the past year, there is not a photograph which the secretary can give me.

FROM the point of view of personal ad

vertising, I greatly admire the French attitude, even though it takes money out of my pocket. I quite believe that a man's private life is his own, and that if his business or political or scientific accomplishments are not good enough to stand alone, it is pretty cheap stuff to popularize him with the public by making him out a good fellow, with his charming and stylish wife thrown in for good measure. When I am refused pictures of the interior of a French philanthropist's house because he feels that his house is for his friends and not for strangers, I lose that much. money, but I am entirely of his opinion. Why should M. Doumergue be trailed as President Coolidge is trailed during his vacation by a staff of special reporters assigned for the summer to make life miserable for him? It is a form of barbarism, this intrusion into the homes and private lives of the great, and the reserve and dignity of the French is admirable, as the freedom from scrutiny of her persons of prominence must be the envy of

our own.

Underwood & Underwood

The President of France, whose home is his own

ern business methods as to the steadfastness and common sense of her Minister of Finance. Advertising, when it is done, is apt to be crude and antagonizing rather than attractive. In the newspapers one finds small advertisements sprinkled through a column called "Echos" which one reads primarily in the hope of having news. In the magazines the best results are shown, for here the artists of both pen and brush do clever work. Another place where advertising is found, which miraculously has been spared the American public, is in

the theater. There is not a cinema too small, nor is the Opéra-Comique too important, but that the intermission sees a screen covered with often very clever animated advertisements. Here at least one may walk out into the promenade if one is bored.

Probably the worst abuse is advertising by radio. The good-will program, which has put practically every fine feature of to-day onto the American radio concert, is practically unknown. The radio is used for direct advertising, and a good musical evening will be interrupted any number of times for announcements five and often ten minutes long telling you what you will find at some department store. Printemps, for example, will pay for the relaying of an opera, and between the acts, instead of a discussion of the settings or costumes, you will be told that sheets will be sold at Printemps the following day for 105 francs.

IT is increasingly evident that France

is becoming aware of her publicity shortcomings. Her German neighbors in particular have already brought their commerce back to a pre-war basis, according to the recent statement of Dr. Julius Klein, of the United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. In addition the tourist propaganda of other countries is increasing by leaps and bounds. Vienna, Prague, Düsseldorf, carry full pages in all the papers, and much money that hitherto rested in France goes on into these other cities. I have been astounded this summer to see how little my American friends buy in Paris. They feel that clothes are as well cut and as reasonable in New York. They hear that leather goods are better in Vienna. They will wait for linens until they reach Czechoslovakia. Why not? These Governments are spending money on telling the world about their products, and place better facilities within reach of investigators, who through gratitude are glad to give them the free advertising that is invaluable in lectures and magazines.

That the French attitude toward personal publicity will change is doubtful, for, with all the Frenchman's reputation for volubility, that instinctive reticence concerning his private affairs is a deeply rooted trait. Another five years, however, is bound to see the charms and products of the country paraded in a more scientific fashion, enabling France to maintain her national prestige in the European competition which grows yearly keener.

Paris, August, 1927.

S

100=31

MALL families are supposed to

have a great advantage over large

ones, especially if the income is small. The mother of only two children. can devote to each far more time than if other babies were occupying her attention. They can be taken to the seashore or mountains, attend dancing classes, go to a private school, and have fine tools, good books, and many other desirable things. Later they can spend a summer abroad, go through college without earning their way, and perhaps inherit an appreciable sum instead of a pittance. All these things might be impossible if there were six children. Do they not constitute important advantages? Another widespread belief is that the more successful people are, the less likely they are to have children. Is it not common knowledge that the upper classes have very small families?

Both of these ideas are untrue.

Why, then, do good authorities repeat them and almost every one believe them? Simply because nobody has taken the trouble to investigate. Here are some of the facts:

S

IXTEEN hundred students of native white American parentage graduated from Yale College in the classes of 1922 to 1926. About half were sons of college graduates and came from a fairly homogeneous social level, Is there any relation between the success of these students in college and the number of their brothers and sisters? Yes, most emphatically.

In five different lines of activity the students from the larger families systematically excel the others. In the classroom, for instance, the thirty boys from families of six or more children forge far ahead of the one hundred who are the only children of their parents. Those from families of two to five children also surpass those from the onechild families.

In extracurricular activities other than athletics the degree of activity diminishes from the one-child to the four-child families, but increases notably in the families of five or more children. The explanation of this twofold tendency probably lies in a combination of the effects of home and school. Boys from small families are more likely than others to attend private preparatory schools, where they learn to take part in student activities before coming to col

lege. In the large families, on the other hand, the children rub up against one another, get their corners knocked off, learn to take part in group activities, become skilled in adapting themselves to other people, and thereby are fitted for co-operative activity and leadership. This probably gives them an even greater advantage than that of the boys who go to private schools.

In athletics the advantage of the large families is remarkably clear; the bigger the family, the greater the average boy's success. The rough-and-tumble play of one small boy with another is the best preparation for college athletics, both physically and morally. Nowhere do children learn to "play up, play up, and win the game" so effectively as in a large family where the children do not vary too much in age. Moreover, as a rule, large families of any given social grade have better health and greater physical vigor than small families. Where there is only one child in a family the reason is often found in the parents' lack of physical vigor. Among college graduates who send their sons to Yale a large family is usually a sign of good health and constitutional vigor on the part of both parents.

At Yale the seniors still cast their votes for the men who are most successful, most brilliant, most industrious, and most likely to succeed in life. Although these votes are largely an indication of popularity, the men who get many do tend to be successful later in life. The Yale classes of 1922 to 1926 gave at least a third more votes, proportionally, to their classmates from families of four or more children than to those from the smaller families. This may indicate greater ability among the men from the larger families, but it almost certainly also indicates that the free-for-all of a large family makes children good mixers and leaders, and more competent and agreeable than the petted only sons in families of one or two children.

The earnings of the sons of Yale graduates while in college average six times as great among students who come from families of six or more as among those who are their parents' only children. Yet, in spite of earning so much money, the men from the big families have time, energy, and ability to surpass the men from one-child families in every other phase of college activity. The supposed advantages of small families are cer

tainly not very apparent. In fact, a boy's handicap in college seems to be almost proportional to the smallness of the family from which he comes.

HE Yale students whose parents

THE

have not been to college fall decidedly below the sons of college graduates. Those from large families are superior to those from small in nonathletic extracurricular activities, in athletics, in senior votes, and in earnings. In classroom rank, however, exactly the opposite is the case; the smaller the family, the higher the rank. This seeming contradiction is due to the fact that Yale students whose parents are not college graduates belong to a wide range of social levels. As we go down in the social scale the general degree of ability declines, while the size of the families. increases. Such being the case, the best minds naturally come from the smaller families. Nevertheless in everything except purely intellectual activity the men from the larger families have the advantage.

The strongest evidence of this advantage appears when we divide the Yale College classes of 1893, 1896, and 1898 into the following eight groups: (1) unmarried, (2) married but childless, (3) married, with one child, etc., up to (8) married, with six children or more. In the classroom the men who remain unmarried rank lowest of all; those who are later married but have no children come next; then those who will be married and have one child. All the groups which are to have two or more children succeed decidedly better than those who are unmarried or who are married but have no children, or only one.

Turning to extracurricular activities, the relation between success in college and the size of a man's family becomes clearer than ever. There is an almost steady increase in success from the unmarried men, whose average rating is two, according to the scale used in this study, to the men with six or more children, whose average is four and a half. This implies that a relatively large percentage of the college men who remain. unmarried, or who have no children. though married, are relatively deficient in the physical vigor which makes athletes and in the qualities which make. men leaders in extracurricular activities and in life. On the other hand, the men who later have reasonably large families