striking policemen were employed in the interests of Mr. Long's candidacy as canvassers. Mr. Long's entire campaign was an appeal to class prejudice. It was a strange campaign because Mr. Long is a wealthy man who made large sums of money out of war contracts, as is indicated by a result of the investigation at Washington.

There were certain minor questions that tended somewhat to confuse the main issue, but as the campaign went on these minor points became practically negli gible. Party lines were largely broken down. Some of the candidates on the Democratic ticket publicly stated their advocacy of the principle of law and order. The speakers of National reputation who participated in the campaign for the supremacy of public authority over any private group or class were practically all Republicans. Such men as Governor Allen of Kansas, Governor Bartlett of New Hampshire, Governor Sproul of Pennsylvania, and former President Taft made speeches in Massachusetts in support of Governor Coolidge. Because of illness Governor Coolidge himself was able to take but little part in the campaign.

GOVERNOR COOLIDGE
VINDICATED

The most hopeful supporters of Governor Coolidge did not dare to believe, that he could get more than fifty thousand majority, and some of the less hopeful were actually fearful of the result. Governor Coolidge was doubly vindicated, however. Not only was his course upheld but his words "Have faith in Massachusetts," which is the title as well as the substance of his book of public speeches recently published, were fully justified. Though Mr. Long carried Boston by about five thousand votes, Governor Coolidge received throughout the State a plurality of nearly one hundred and twenty-five thousand. For every three votes that Long received, Coolidge received five.

In 1775 it was in Massachusetts that the first shot was fired for liberty against despotism. In 1919 it is in Massachusetts that the first battle of the ballots has been won in this struggle for liberty against anarchy. As Governor Coolidge said as soon as the result was known: "The men of Massachusetts are not labor men, or policemen, or union men, or poor men, or rich men, or any other class men first-they are Americans first."

The verdict of the voters of Massachusetts is an honor to the Commonwealth. It is also a tribute to the leadership of a man who has, by his course, gained National distinction. An estimate of Governor Coolidge is given on another page.

The very fact that what he stands for is simple and fundamental is an indication of his character. That Governor Coolidge was elected by this great vote means not only that Massachusetts stands firmly against all revolutionary radical influences that would undermine our system of government, but that the American people can be depended upon to preserve the institutions of law and liberty that their fathers established and for genera tions have at great cost maintained.

THE ELECTION IN NEW YORK CITY

The municipal government of New York City has administrative control of York City has administrative control of six million people. From the point of view of population, therefore, the New York City government is bigger and more important than that of any State Government in the country, with the exception of Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York State itself. These simple figures give a vivid impression of why a New York City election is of such National importance. Indeed, some of the problems of New York City government are entirely comparable in complexity and human importance to problems of the Federal Government. It is especially interesting and encouraging to report that at the recent election of November 4 the people of New York City made a decided stand for good government. The results of the election have been commented upon as a blow to Tammany. This may upon as a blow to Tammany. This may be, and probably is, true, for Tammany be, and probably is, true, for Tammany is greatly disappointed in the result; but the vote was a constructive rather than a destructive one. Tammany had attempted to control the judiciary by turning down a Democratic candidate for the Supreme Court, Judge Newburger, in behalf of a young man whose claims were chiefly those of being the son of his father, Mr. Samuel Untermyer. The Republicans and Independent Democrats united in nominating Judge Newburger, who was triumphantly elected, showing that Tammany with all its popular and political power cannot control all the people all the time, when a clear-cut issue of justice and good government is presented to the

voters.

Mr. La Guardia, an American of Italian descent, who has been a Member of Congress, was elected President of the Board of Aldermen, and Mr. Henry H. Curran, a Republican, was elected President of the Borough of Manhattan. The election of these two men will, in the case of any disagreement among the Tammany members, give a balance of power in the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, which is really the seat of executive government in New York City. As Messrs. La Guardia and Curran both

stand for honesty and efficiency in municipal affairs, the effect upon the city government will be certainly pronounced and probably very evident.

Mr. Curran was elected against statistical odds and almost wholly on his record. He is a graduate of Yale, a lawyer, saw active military service during the war, and was at one time a member of the Board of Aldermen, where he not only reorganized the procedure of that body but was instrumental in the codification of city ordinances. He has had long and practical training in the art and science of municipal government, and his election may be taken as an indication that the great mass of voters in this democracy want well-trained and efficient men to administer their affairs when they know how to get hold of them.

PROHIBITION IN OHIO

In Ohio a series of popular referendums brought the prohibition issue strongly before the voters. These proposed amendments were three in number. The first defined non-intoxicating liquor as a beverage containing two and threequarters per cent alcohol or less. The second amendment sought to repeal State prohibition and to return Ohio to a system of local option. The third amendment dealt with the resolution passed by the Ohio Legislature ratifying the Federal Prohibition Amendment. A drastic State Enforcement Act designed to help in the repression of the liquor traffic after the Federal Amendment should go into effect was also before the people for popular approval.

Immediately after the election it appeared that the Dry forces had won by a large majority, but one week thereafter the issue was still in some doubt. The Prohibitionists at that time claimed that the State had refused to go back to a system of local option by about 30,000 votes, had refused to indorse 2.75 per cent beer by a narrow margin, and had voted to sustain the ratification of the Federal

Prohibition Amendment by a few thousands. The fate of the State Enforcement Act still hung in the balance. As in New Jersey, the stronghold of the Wets lay in the cities, while the Drys found their most vigorous supporters in the country districts. The conflicting attitude of rural and urban communities toward the Prohibition Amendment is one which is destined to cause complication when the enforcement of prohibition is attempted.

WET NEW JERSEY

In New Jersey the Wet cities practically swamped the Dry country, as is disclosed by the fact that the Wet and

successful candidate for Governor carried only five of the twenty-one counties of the State. The Democratic candidate, Edward I. Edwards, formerly State Comptroller, pledged himself to fight the enforcement of prohibition by every lawful

means.

On the other hand, the Republican candidate, Newton Bugbee, the present Comptroller, pledged himself to enforce prohibition. He maintained that Mr. Edwards's attitude was deceptive, as a Governor must take oath to support State and National institutions, and that after January 16, 1920, the question of enforcement will rest with the Federal Government and not with the State, even as vaguely qualified by the phrase "lawful means. "Does Mr. Edwards want to put Jersey in the nullifying attitude of South Carolina half a century ago?" queried Mr. Bugbee at a recent Republican rally at Lakewood. Apparently the people of Newark and Jersey City did not object to nullification, or else believed that they were simply deciding that the State would not use its "concurrent power" to enforce the Federal Amend

ment.

The trolley issue played a much smaller part in the result. Mr. Edwards opposed the trolley fare zone system allowed by the present (Republican) Public Utilities Commission and pledged himself to an Elective Board. Mr. Bugbee promised the reorganization of the Utilities Commission and a valuation of the trolley upon which to base a rated fare.

The claim of some Democrats that this election indorses the National Administration is disputed by the fact of the election of a State Legislature Republican in both branches.

OTHER ELECTION NEWS OF NOTE

Outside of Massachusetts the elections had little bearing on National issues save that of prohibition.

Kentucky elected a Republican Governor who had confined his campaign largely to local issues. His Democratic opponent ran on a platform indorsing the League of Nations. Kentucky also indorsed National prohibition.

Maryland apparently elected a Democratic Governor by the narrow margin of 165 votes.

Woman suffrage won a victory in Maine on November 5, when the Senate of that State on that day completed ratification of the Federal Suffrage Amendment. Maine is the nineteenth State to ratify.

THE SENATE AND
THE PEACE TREATY

There were two dramatic moments recently in the long and often tedious

deliberations of the Senate over the Peace Treaty. One was on November 6, when for a time it seemed that the Senate was about to accept unanimously Senator Lodge's challenge to vote at once on a motion to ratify without conditions. Senator Hitchcock for the Democrats instantly made the motion; two suggested modifications to safeguard future action were accepted. The Senate being in committee of the whole, one objection would stop action; for a long time no one would object, but at last the incident was closed by the objection of Senator Jones, of Washington (Republican).

The second dramatic incident occurred when the Senate's vote of 48 to 40 was announced on the preamble to the reservations as presented by Senator Lodge from the Committee on Foreign Relations. The preamble (sometimes called the first reservation) requires the final resolution of ratification (if adopted) to be accepted by three of the four principal Allied Powers, named in the preamble as Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. This was supposed to be opposed strongly by all who are not "strong reservationists," and its passage was regarded as a victory for those who want effective rather than interpretative limitations to the Treaty. Although the final resolution of ratification to be valid must be passed by a two-thirds vote, a simple majority may, at the present stage of procedure, be decisive. Later a still larger majority, 50 to 35, voted for the reservation permitting the United States to be judge for itself whether it has fulfilled its obligations to the League in case it withdraws from the League on two years' notice. Debate on the reservation as to Article X (the "Heart of the Covenant") began on November 10.

President Wilson's improvement in health allowed him to discuss the Treaty situation with Senator Hitchcock on November 6. The result of the interview seems to be an impression that the President is willing, if necessary, to accept interpretative reservations, provided they

are not "destructive" in their character. What he may consider destructive is, however, a matter of conjecture.

THE EXCLUSION OF
VICTOR BERGER

The House of Representatives has always insisted upon its right to exclude members-elect. By a vote of eight to one the Special Committee of the House, considering the case of Victor L. Berger, of Wisconsin, has recommended that he be excluded from membership of the House and that the seat in the Fifth Wisconsin District should be declared vacant.

The Committee's report asserts: "That Victor L. Berger was disloyal to the

United States of America at a time when its existence as a free and independent Nation was at stake, there cannot be the slightest doubt." It proceeds:

A mass of testimony was introduced at the hearings showing the nature and history of Socialism,... the indictment being that an attempt was being made to exclude Representative Berger because he is a Socialist. The fact that in 1911, when he had been elected as a Socialist to... Congress, no objection was made to his being seated, and the further fact that in December, 1915, ... no objection was made to the admission of Representative-elect Meyer London, of New York, who had also been elected as a Socialist, is a sufficient answer to such an indictment.

The only question of fact at issue in this case is whether or not Victor L. Berger was disloyal to the United States during the war between this country and the Imperial German Government and gave aid or comfort to its enemies.

The one dissenting member of the Committee, Representative Rodenberg, of Illinois, has filed a minority report in which he argues that the House should delay its decision until Mr. Berger's appeal has been disposed of by the Court of Appeals. The Seventh United States District Court had decided that Mr. Berger's writings were disloyal, and he has appealed from that decision.

As we go to press we learn that the House has voted to exclude Mr. Berger. The vote was all but unanimous, 309 to 1.

AN "OPEN SEASON" FOR
AMERICANS

In the discussion in the House of Representatives the other day on a resolution urging the Government to prosecute and punish the Mexican bandits who abducted Mr. W. O. Jenkins, an American consular agent at Puebla, Mr. Gould, of New York, declared that "the Department of State, in open and cynical repudiation of the most sacred obligation of Government to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, has declared an open season on Americans for bandits and rebels in Mexico. Further, it has even extended this repudiation to its own official representatives in Mexico. With official sanction it has permitted the statement of policy to go forth to the world."

It seems that the State Department holds that even its own officials are not entitled to protection in Mexico. In this case our representative saved his life by begging his friends to raise a large sum of money ($135,000, we believe), and our Government thinks it would be wrong to repay them this money and apparently proposes then mildly to ask Mr. Carranza not to let such a thing happen again.

How long Americans will put up with the helplessness of Carranza to enforce

law and order in Mexice becoming an old question, but not less vital because it is old. Some time that American spirit will be aroused which in the past dealt with the crimes of the Barbary pirates and which led to John Hay's famous ultimatum, "Perdicaris alive, or Raisuli dead."

AN INTERESTING MEMORIAL TO THEODORE ROOSEVELT

On November 2 there was unveiled at the Keneseth Israel Temple in Philadelphia a memorial window to Theodore Roosevelt. Oscar S. Straus, who was Secretary of Commerce and Labor in President Roosevelt's Cabinet, made the address of the occasion, and Kermit Roosevelt drew aside the American flag which unveiled the window. This memorial is not merely a tribute to Roosevelt as an American patriot and statesman, but it is a mark of the profound influence for good which he exerted upon the religious life and spirit of this country, for, as Mr. Straus said in his address: "Theodore Roosevelt has taken his place among the immortals and it is eminently fitting that he should be memorialized in the House of Worship of our ancient people, the teachings of whose prophets were in so many respects exemplified in his constructive contribution to our economic and political welfare. The passage from the Prophet Micah, 'Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God,' was his favorite Biblical quotation and embodied his religious and political

creed."

In reviewing the progress of the American people since the days of the Revolu

" In

tion in which "Washington and Lincoln were the leaders of the first two periods," Mr. Straus laid emphasis on the fact that Theodore Roosevelt was "the wise and intrepid leader of the third period, in the throes of which we are now living." statesmanship he stood pre-eminently for social justice, for the protection of the rights of both capital and labor, and for the unqualified condemnation of the excesses and anti-social acts of both capital and labor. "Roosevelt," said Mr. Straus,

66

was always very sympathetic to organized labor, and said if he were a laboring man he would join the union of his trade. On the other hand, no one rebuked more drastically the unfair practices and unjust claims of organized labor than he did." To illustrate this Mr. Straus related the story of the discharge of a workman in the Bureau of Printing while Roosevelt was President because this workman was not a member of the union. Roosevelt immediately reinstated the man against the protests of the American Federation of Labor, which made an issue of the case. And this happened just prior to the campaign when he, Roosevelt, was a can

didate for President! "Political expediency," said Mr. Straus, "or any other personal consideration never had any influence upon his action, certainly not when they conflicted with his sense of right."

During the campaign of 1908, when Mr. Taft was the candidate for President, there was an attempt to arouse theological and sectarian prejudices and passion. Mr. Straus quoted what Roosevelt said of this attempt: "I regard it as an outrage even to agitate such a question as a man's religious convictions with a purpose of influencing a political election. . . . To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against liberty of conscience, which is one of the foundations of American life.... In my Cabinet at the present time there sit side by side Catholic and Protestant, Christian and Jew, each man chosen because in my belief he is peculiarly fitted to exercise on behalf of all our people the duties of the office to which I have appointed him."

The concluding words of Mr. Straus's remarks are worthy of wide reading at this time when there is a concerted action to overthrow the American principles and institutions of government and substitute a hopeless plan by which every man shall go as he pleases without regard to moral or legal authority. "A country that has such three pre-eminently great and good men in its calendar of liberty [Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt] is destined to have a long life so long as its

action. The people want thought given to their concerns. They knew where they were going during the war. They were all co-operating for the destruction of the enemy. They enjoyed the definiteness and the greatness of that objective. They could see where they were going each day. But peace came and they lost that objective. Life seemed comparatively without purpose. They were thrown back on themselves and to purely selfish concerns. We lost our National morale because we failed to keep alive the idea of Americanism as we had kept it alive in the war. We did not shift back quickly enough to the work of putting all our steam into the work of giving a new motif to the

American drama.

But" the imposition of a language is by no means the creation of nationalism," says the Rev. Thomas Burgess, Genera Superintendent for the Episcopal Churc in its immigrant work. He continues:

The achievement of assimilation and a safe democracy require religion also.... The State and secular agencies can teach only the intellectual part of man and in part minister to his physical well-being. Far more than one-half of these foreignborn-energetic, industrious, and ten times as prolific as the native-are not here attached to any Christian body whatsoever. The millions of unchurched children of the foreign-born are a great menace and a great opportunity.

Americanization does indeed mean the Americanization of the whole man, body, mind, and soul. We appreciate the influence which the churches of the country can wield in the problem of Americanization. planned, we believe, so that other religious Their particular programmes will be bodies will not be aroused against them because of any possible suspicion of prose

HOW TO HELP
MAKE AMERICANS

One out of every ten of our people cannot read a newspaper or read a letter. Three hundred thousand out of 1,500,000 boys called to the colors could not understand spoken English and could not read or write English.

These statements were made by Secretary Lane of the Interior Department the other day at a Senate hearing on the bill now before that body proposing Federal co-operation with the States to establish special schools for the purpose of teaching the English language.

In Mr. Lane's opinion-and in ours -the Americanization of the country through the instruction of its illiterates in English is a fundamental necessity. Mr. Lane said to the Committee:

We hear the alarms of social discontent. We hear efforts of revolutionary

would suffer if the foreign-born suspect that Americanization work done by the churches had as any part of its motive an endeavor to draw them away from their own religious creeds.

THE SINN FEIN VS.
AMERICAN SAILORS

Now that the war is receding into the background, we hear less of propaganda than we did during its prosecution. Sinn Fein propaganda, however, is by no means quiescent. It is still appealing to our hyphenated citizens whose main interest lies not with the country of their adoption. Those who want a true picture of what Sinn Fein stood for during the war have only to turn to the November "World's Work" and read what Admi ral Sims says of the treatment of our sailors by these Irish radicals. We have space here only for a brief quotation:

The fact is that the part of Ireland in which the Americans were stationed was a headquarters of the Sinn Fein. The members of this organization were not only openly disloyal; they were openly

pro-German. They were not even neu-
tral-they were working day and night
for a German victory; in their mis-
guided minds a German victory signified
an Irish Republic. It was no secret that
the Sinn Feiners were sending informa-
tion to Germany, and constantly laying
plots to interfere with the British and
American navies. At first it might be
supposed that the large number of
sailors-and some officers-of Irish ex-
traction on the American destroyers
would tend to make things easier for our
men. Quite the contrary proved to be the
case. The Sinn Feiners apparently be-
lieved that these so-called Trish-Ameri-
cans would sympathize with their cause;
in their wildest moments they even hoped
that our naval forces might champion it.
But these splendid sailors were Ameri-
cans before they were anything else;
their chief ambition was the defeat of
the Hun, and they could not understand
how any man anywhere could have any
other aim in life. They were disgusted
at the large numbers of able-bodied men
whom they saw on the streets, and did
not hesitate to ask some of them why
they were not fighting on the western
front. The behavior of the American
sailors was good, but the mere fact that
they did not openly manifest a hatred of
Great Britain and a love of Germany
infuriated the Sinn Feiners.

The Sinn Fein propagandists have made much of the relationship between American sailors and Irish women, an association which Admiral Sims declares "was a very wholesome one, for the moral character of the Irish girls of Queenstown and Cork-as indeed of Irish girls everywhere-is very high, and their companionship added greatly to the wellbeing and contentment of our sailors, not a few of whom, indeed, found wives among these young women."

Admiral Sims further says: "Frequently attacks were made, not upon the American sailors, but upon the Irish girls who accompanied them. These chivalrous pro-German agitators would rush up and attempt to tear the girls away from our young men; they would pull down their hair, slap them, and even kick them."

This conduct resulted (after the naturally ensuing fights between the sailors and the Sinn Feiners) in the well-known order from the British Admiral Bayly that no naval men, British or American, under the rank of commander should be permitted to go to Cork. The appeal of the Sinn Fein leaders in this country for American sympathy can stand or fall with perfect justice upon Admiral Sims's testimony.

HAS AMERICA ABANDONED
HER CRIPPLED SOLDIERS?

When American young men were selected by draft boards and sent to fight against German aggression, the country believed that nothing was too good for them. Now there are 230,000 of them who

have been disabled. Has the country forgotten them? Does it want these men who were crippled in its service to be left to beg?

The American Legion, the National organization of American veterans of the world war, charges that these crippled soldiers have been not only forgotten but deluded and defrauded. In its weekly publication it declares that the Government "has failed to keep its promises to disabled veterans." In two articles by Marquis James, published in the suc cessive issues of September 19 and 26, a statement of facts is made which, coming from so responsible a source, ought to arouse the American people to demand. from Government officials and from Congress refutation or reform.

Thousands of wounded men, it is asserted, some in every community, are left "abandoned by the Government they served." "They frequent Red Cross and other charitable soldiers' aid societies-they want food, shelter, or money, and a chance to earn them by some light labor they can negotiate under the handicap of their infirmity." And when they are asked if they have visited the local district of the Federal Board for Vocational Education, it appears either that they "have never heard of such an organization except in a vague, mess-line rumor sort of way, or else they have heard about all of it that they care to hear."

Repeatedly the American public has been told of the great plans for enabling crippled soldiers to learn how to support themselves, and then for placing these disabled but trained men in positions where they can be self-supporting. The two articles in the "American Legion Weekly " quote from the advertisements put out by the Federal Board making promises. What is the result? The writer of these articles terms it “

a black record of broken promises and betrayal of trust." This great Government organization, with its 1,635 salaried employees, and with the funds of the Government behind it, had, on June 21, placed in gainful occupation, on graduation from training, only eleven men, and by September 4 had increased the number only to thirty-three. In August there were only 5,512 in training, and on September 4 only 6,699. The Board reported that 16,410 disabled men had been placed in employment with no training or incomplete training, but of these 12,820 found jobs for themselves.

And in the process of training, the Government is parsimonious beyond belief, if the statements cannot be refuted. For example, any wages a man earns while in training are appropriated by the Board, and any compensation he is entitled to from the War Risk Bureau is forfeited unless it exceeds $80 a month, the amount

which he legally may draw from the Board while in training, in which case he is paid merely the excess. As the writer states it: "What incentive has the employer to pay the man a decent wage when the money is stolen from the crippled worker's pocket?"

But even before the wounded man is accepted for training he is subjected to delay that is likely to end the hope that the Government's promises raised-a delay of three weeks to six months after release from the hospital.

What is the cause?

Apparently a combination of "red tape" and "passing the buck." There are three parties to the negligence-Congress, the War Risk Insurance Bureau, and the Federal Board for Vocational Education. Each of these bodies can blame the others and all have evolved an elaborate system which keeps the victim waiting while its wheels revolve.

So the very Government that promised to keep men from charity is now referring men to charitable organizations for aid. And the very Government that promised men support and aid to self-support is engaged most elaborately in seeing that no crippled soldier under Government training gets the encouragement of good

wages.

The American Legion, however, does not content itself with complaint. In these articles it presents a programme of remedy. To paraphrase it in our own words: Take the Board out of Washington and scatter it through the country, so that it can get next to the men it should serve. Shorten the delay between discharge from the hospital and entrance on training. Fulfill the promises the Government has made. Interpret the law broadly so as not to keep men out of training who cannot while training support themselves on the small awards they receive from Government insurance. Liberalize the provision for medical attention. And revoke the regulations that send crippled soldiers to seek the aid of public charities.

The American people have very serious problems of their own nowadays; but that is no excuse for their forgetting to keep their promises to the men who were hurt in preserving their rights and liberty.

MR. LLOYD GEORGE SUSTAINED

On October 23 the British Government was defeated by a majority of 72. On October 30 it secured a vote of confidence by a majority of 355.

The defeat came through a lack of knowledge concerning the Government's reasons for its request to except a number of French pilots in the pending bill to withhold pilotage certificates from all aliens. This was quickly adjusted.

The victory came through the Pre