of the laboring man to secure justice; but when we advance to the point where the Government undertakes to fix his wages there is no longer room for the interruption to commerce of a strike or a lockout. I believe the bill will result in justice to the employee. The provision for labor representation on railway directorates is, added Mr. Cummins, the recognition of the employees' just demand for participation in the policies of the companies. "It will not be long until all industries are organized that way," he concluded. "It is a condition precedent to peaceful, intelligent settlement of controversies between capital and labor." Certainly we cannot successfully meet the railway problem until some such consolidation of capital and labor as above outlined shall have taken place. Otherwise Government ownership and operation will be but a question of time. THE TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIP William M. Johnston, of California, won the National tennis championship on September 4, when he defeated in three straight sets William T. Tilden, of Philadelphia. The tournament which ended with the crowning of Johnston as champion of the United States was one of the most dramatic in American tennis history. Johnston, in fighting his way through the brilliant field to the place of highest honor, proved again that he was entitled to rank with the best of the masters of this difficult and fascinating game. Not only did he overcome the best that America could afford, but he also beat the British champion, the redoubtable Gerald L. Patterson, of Australia. After the completion of the National tournament he also engaged in an exhibition match with Patterson's brilliant teammate, Norman E. Brookes, and defeated this player by taking three sets to his opponent's one. Johnston's victory was in every way well deserved, for he is one of the soundest and best-rounded players of the game. A ROYAL GIFT Victor Emanuel, King of Italy, announces his withdrawal of any right of possession of the buildings on the royal crown lands"in favor of those institutions and charitable organizations whose distinct aim is to mitigate such sufferings of the people as arise out of the dire consequences of war." The King had already designated six of his royal residences, which he would turn over to the nation, as permanent homes for disabled soldiers. These included certain royal villas in north Italy, some near Rome, and the splendid palace at Caserta near Naples, buildings which he had already assigned for hospital and other use when Italy entered the war in 1915. Nor, apparently, is this all. Another despatch from Italy says that the King has given the royal crown lands themselves to the peasantry and "to those who fought for Italian unity." This would of course double the value and significance of the buildings. Now that the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov possessions no longer exist, the Italian crown lands are the most extensive of those held by any European monarch. Many of these properties came to the ruling House of Savoy by bequest from the heads of the small states which combined to form the United Kingdom of Italy. No head of a government anywhere has, we think, shown a more constant interest than has Victor Emanuel, either in the economic development of a people or in the welfare of those called upon to defend their country. To the daily proofs of his personal feeling he now adds an unprecedented expression. What ruler has ever made a more magnificent gift? There is nothing patronizing or grandiloquent in this gracious act. Those who know Italy do not need to be reminded. that in her present Executive she is blessed with a naturally democratic man, accidentally a king. JOBS FOR THE SOLDIERS In its endeavor to find positions for discharged soldiers and sailors the United States Employment Service of the Department of Labor has been remarkably reinforced by State and city governments, by Chambers of Commerce, by the American Federation of Labor, and by the well-known welfare societies. It is hard to know just how to apportion the credit. While the United States Employment Service is sometimes adversely criticised, one must remember that it is a new undertaking and a very large one. Its noteworthy accomplishments reveal the long-felt need for a Federal employ ment service. Few people, however, realize that skilled work is called for on the part of employment agencies. First, the laboring man must have confidence in the agency, must believe in its honesty and in its devotion to his own best interests. Second, it is equally important for his best interests as well as for the employer's that the agency should be able properly to "size up" each applicant for a job, so that when a man is sent to fill a vacancy the likelihood will be in favor of his being able to hold the place. Nothing can discredit an agency more quickly in the eyes of both the parties served than recur ring instances of failure to have man and job fit. Only in cases of unskilled labor, when numbers are needed, without special. qualifications, is this sort of study not vital to the success of the work. It is essential, therefore, that an employment service should serve the best interests of the man who has the job and the man who has his service to give. From the very nature of the case such work must be done very well indeed in order to seem even passably good. The present Federal Employment Service lacks two particular powers; it should have them to meet the larger aspects of its endeavor. First, no available Government or other machinery under its control exists to transport men from one part of the country to another; hence there has been very little success in starting any movement of labor from cities of surplus to cities of need. Second, there has been no working out of a system of industrial training; such training gives men the chance to make the most of themselves. Nevertheless, in their efforts for the returning soldiers and sailors, let us be thankful that the United States Employment Service, the other agencies, together with the War Department's timely leadership, have during the past few months brought us far nearer to what we all want the right job for the right soldier-than we were during the winter. A LEAGUE OF CHURCHES The Outlook recently published an article giving views of the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople on the question of church union-or reunion. The Rev. Frank E. Henry sends us an account of what is being done in this direction in Montana. About a year and a half ago in New York City there was a meeting of the heads of nine Home Missionary Societies. They represented the leading Protestant churches. They formed a new organization, the Home Missionary Council. In the Council's work all denominational organization remained intact with local leadership as before, but the Churches now have a general staff, composed of what might be called the field marshals of each Church. There was need for the Council's aetivity, as Mr. Henry says. The overchurched sections of most cities and States had already risen up to condemn the missionary societies for spending missionary funds for the overlapping of religious activity, while at the same time certain sections of cities and of the country were destitute of religious privileges. A consolidation plan was taken up in Montana. Mr. Henry writes of its reception : The watery Baptist and the dry-asdust Presbyterian met and mingled with advantage to each other and the rest. Headstrong Congregationalists and heartstrong Methodists found in each other a corrective and counterbalance. The liturgical Episcopalian made the best offhand speech and the Southern Methodist the most classical. The Lutheran, with his high board fence of language and theology, and the Disciple, whose job has been ostensibly to remove all fences, joined in singing with the others, "Blest be the tie that binds Our hearts in Christian love." A tour of the State was undertaken, each group traveling over one of the railway lines that cross Montana, stopping to study the church situation at typical towns and cities and to make cross-country motor trips to unchurched settlements far from the railways. The result was that the State became divided up among the denominations; that is, in small towns and outlying districts each Church to the compact agreed to respect the prior right of occupancy held by any other Church, while in the cities an effort was made to "allocate" districts to bring about an interchange of territory whereby two organizations could exchange weak churches, leaving one strong society. Thus the result will be, declares Mr. Henry, that not a corner of Montana, even though a hundred miles from the railway, will be left without a resident pastor giving more or less regular services. FINLAND'S ABILITY FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT . its self-government. "The Government became unsettled only when through interference from the Russian Government it was prevented from proceeding according to the laws of Finland." The so-called "Red Rebellion" last year itself originated in Russia, and was, protests Mr. Rauanheimo, the only rebellion against the lawful Government of the country that ever occurred there. Now that Finland has become independent, Russia can no longer interfere in the Finnish Government. The selfgovernment of Finland can now continue and develop freely on the principles which have long been established in other countries. The present democratic form of government in Finland has been accentuated by the election of a democratic Presi dent. In the election of members to Parliament every Finnish man and woman has a vote. This Parliament has already effected reforms, and some of them, Mr. those in any other European country. Rauanheimo claims, go further than do Mr. Rauanheimo also claims that absolute order now prevails in Finland, and that it has been the first country to defeat Bolshevism. It may have been-and this is a proud distinction-but we query the "absolute order." MEXICO common interests then they now seem to possess. Many intelligent Mexicans think that the American people have deliber. ately elected to follow a policy of aggression in order to add Mexico's territory, one of the richest in natural resources in the world, to that of the United States. Many intelligent Americans believe that Mexico is under the control of a set of greedy, unscrupulous bandits who are engaged in robbing their own fellowcitizens and foreign investors with equal zest and disregard of human rights. Neither of these estimates is true. But where does the actual truth lie? Is it possible to get at the truth? Can the facts in the controversy be so presented to the American and the Mexican people that they can be persuaded to work together for a mutual solution of the problem? Round-table conferences between the two Governments have been tried and have failed. War on a small and halfhearted scale for the taking of Vera Cruz and the sending of a military punitive expedition into Mexico were certainly war-has been tried and has failed. There remains only one thing to be done, and that is to create a real and forceful public opinion in this country for peace or for war. Watchful waiting for some solution to turn up will no longer avail. The way to create public opinion on any case is to give the facts to the public with an authority which it accepts and in a form which it can easily grasp. In rejoinder to some statements in HEAmerican people have just passed This has not been done in the Mexican 66 recent issues of The Outlook questioning the ability of Finland for self-government, Mr. Akseli Rauanheimo, Director of the Finnish Government's Information Bureau in New York City, writes to us, rather resenting the term new nation as applied to Finland, and asserting that Finland is no 66 new nation" in the sense that it is only now arranging its selfgovernment. As he says, Finland is not only old in civilization (the ability to read has been general for some two hundred years), but from ancient times the people have had self-government. Under Swedish rule Finland was governed as a separate Grand Duchy. "When, in 1809, Finland came under Russian rule, it was lifted to the level of a nation by Alexander I, who preserved and ratified the self-government of the country. During the entire time of Russian rule Finland had its own organized government, similar to those of western Europe, its own monetary system, customs, etc. It had its own Parliament long before there was any representation of the people in the Russian Government." And all this time, declares Mr. Rauanheimo, Finland has been well able to govern its people. There have been no disturbances in Finland on account of THE through a terrible and bloody war. They do not want to begin another if it can possibly be avoided. No plebiscite or referendum is necessary to convince us that the people of this country are op posed to military intervention in Mexico if justice, human rights, and self-respect can be preserved in any other way. It may be admitted that under the Administration of President Carranza much has been done to provoke, irritate, and anger the American people. Much has been done to hamper, injure, and even destroy their legitimate financial and commercial interests in Mexico. President Carranza's attitude towards the World War has done more than any other one thing to strengthen the impression in this country that Mexican sentiment is hostile to the United States. Without question dangerous irritation, antipathy, and hostility exist on both sides of the border. The question is, Can this aggressive and hostile relationship be changed into one of neighborly cooperation, such as exists on both sides of the Canadian border, without an appeal to force? If Mexico and the United States are not to drift into war, they must have a better mutual understanding of their deficiencies, errors, responsibilities, and situation, but it could be accomplished, it seems to us, somewhat simply in this way: Let the President appoint a commission of not less than six and not more than ten men to visit Mexico. Let the appointees be men of high repute and represent various walks of life—industry, education, sociology, scholarship, finance, labor, statesmanship. Let this commission have the prestige and authority of being appointed by the President and with the duty of reporting to the Presi dent, but possessed of no political function or authority whatever. Let its sole duty be to visit, and by conference and observation get the facts. When its visit and deliberations are finished, let it present to the President a report of the social, political, and industrial situation in Mexico, the American problems arising from this situation, and its recommendations for the solution of such problems. Let its report be brief, non-technical, and readable. We believe that the Mexican people and authorities would welcome such a visit, and that the American public would accept such a report if the members of the commission were men whose names and character commanded public respect. If the report was cast in the form of a readable narra tive, such as Dr. John Finley, the Edu cational Commissioner of New York State, or William Roscoe Thayer, the historian, might write, the newspaper and periodical press of the United States. would publish it widely. The object of such a commission and such a report would be non-political and non-partisan. It would not even be for the purpose of suggesting legislation. It would be simply and solely to give the American people the facts. Something of this kind has been tried once or twice before, but has failed for what seem to us to be very obvious reasons. A report by an individual or by a group representing merely one phase of American thought, like finance or journalism, is inevitably open to the suspicion of personal or political or class prejudice. A commission, however, can be appointed of such a character that its public utterances would have the force of the utterances of a group of scientists who go without prejudice to explore and describe a country unknown to the mass of their own fellow-citizens. Before the American people can make up their mind with regard to Mexico we believe they want the facts. These at present they do not possess. In the meantime we desire to recommend to our readers the nearest approach to such a report of the facts from the pen of a single writer that we have seen. It is a book entitled "Mexico To-Day and To-Morrow," by Edward D. Trowbridge, and it is published by the Macmillan Company, of New York. Mr. Trowbridge is an industrial engineer of Detroit who has had important administrative experience. both in Spain and in Mexico. He has been the managing executive of one of the great public utility companies in the latter country owned by foreign capital. All his interests would predispose him, we should suppose, towards intervention. On the contrary, he is an anti-interventionist. We are glad to say that the suggestion made in this article of a Presi dential Mexican commission is due to the stimulation we have received from a reading of this book and to an illuminating discussion of the whole problem with its author. for the interchange of the products of our various industries; transportation of ourselves and our goods from one part of the country to another; warehouses to store them and shops where they can be purchased; healing for the sick and care of the aged, the infirm, and the defec tive; education for the children; art, music, rational amusement, mutual information and instruction and moral and spiritual inspiration for all. There must be farmers, merchants, manufacturers, artisans, stage-drivers and railway operators, doctors, hospitals, teachers, authors, editors, playwrights, and ministers of religion. In order that this complicated life may be carried on, there must be government, partly to protect us from the dishonest and the criminal, partly to perform certain functions of a public nature, such as the building of roads, the lighting of cities, and the carriage of mails. No one person can do all these things. Some must farm, some manufacture, some buy and sell, some teach. The only reason why all men must have the right to take part in government is that if government is left to one group the other groups will not be justly governed. But freedom of government does not require that all the members of all the groups take an equally active part in the government. Industry must be free; and that it may be free every citizen must be at liberty to enter any industry he chooses-there must be no monopoly. But it is not necessary that any citizen should take part in any particular industry. Speech must be free; and that it may be free every citizen must be at liberty to express his opinion by voice or in print; there must be no censorship of the press. But it is not necessary that every citizen should be an orator, or an editor, or even write letters to the newspapers. So government must be free; and that it may be free every citizen must be at liberty to take part in it. But it is not necessary that he should take part in it at all times, nor any specified share as a political worker at any time. The liberty of all citizens to take part in the government does not insure either a wise or a just government, but it is the best device which has yet been discovered to prevent government by a class for the class; and class government has been the most prolific cause of injustice in the history of the world. Universal participation in government makes it possible for the citizens to overthrow by peaceable means any government which becomes intolerably unjust and oppressive. There are three duties of every citizen, domestic, individual, political. It is the duty of the husband and wife to provide for each other's comfort and for the comfort, education, training, and happi ness of their children; to provide for the comfort and the intellectual and spiritual well-being of the community; and to do what they can to secure a pure, honest, and efficient government. Which of these three duties comes first depends partly upon the individual and partly upon the times. During the last three years the political duties came first. Husbands left their homes, teachers their pupils, ministers their churches, manufacturers their factories, farmers the plough, artisans the bench and anvil, in order to protect a strange people across the sea from an unprovoked assault by an unprincipled band of brigands. They are now returning to take up their accustomed duties in the homes, the shops, the schools, and the churches. We may fondly hope and earnestly pray that such a call will never again be made upon the American people. But there are times far less stressful which call upon the citizen to sacrifice something of his home comfort and his ordinary industrial activity in order to take part in political action. I live in a New York village, the political affairs of which give most of its citizens but little concern. They are administered, in the main well administered, by five officers who are generally elected unanimously, who serve with no pay and with little honor, and who are always habitually subjected to a plentiful amount of criticism. To secure this good government it is not necessary that I should become a political worker. But every two years, under the Local Option Law of this State, we have had to vote on the question whether we would allow saloons. When this question has arisen, the minister has turned from the pulpit, the teacher from the school-room, the fathers and the mothers from their homes, the merchants and artisans from their shops, and for three weeks have become political workers and have devoted their time and energies to a political campaign to keep the saloons out of the town; they have succeeded in their effort. For this work they had neither taste nor bent, and when on two occasions the liquor dealers failed to file the petition which the law required in order to bring the matter before the community, the temperance workers rejoiced in the relief afforded to them. These two incidents, one National, one local, may serve to illustrate the principle that whether it is the duty of the private citizen to become a political worker depends upon the particular conditions at any particular time. There seem to me, however, to be three political duties which every citizen owes, under all ordinary circumstances, to his community. The citizen ought to ascertain as well as he can the character of the candidates for office and to vote only for trustworthy men. I know of no better brief charac terization of fitness for public office than that of Jethro 'to Moses, "Thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness." "Principles, not men," is a deceptive saying; for it should be substituted, Principles in men. Principles professed by unprincipled men are worse than valueless. There are usually three or four political parties in the field. We elect not merely a candidate, but the party which that candidate represents-not merely Mr. Wilson, but the Democratic party; not merely Mr. Taft, but the Republican party. The citizen should decide which of the parties that are asking his suffrage is the one to which he desires to intrust the government of the State or the Nation for the ensuing term. For this purpose he should endeavor to make himself acquainted with the principles and personnel of the rival parties. Independent judgment, not inherited prejudice, should control his vote. And at all times, by public and private utterances, by speech and by act, in the parlor, the hotel lobby, the polling-booth, his influence should be exerted upon the side of justice, purity, good will, and the honor and the welfare of the American people. LYMAN ABBOTT. "DELIVERANCE" goe normal human beings to be T against the grain of most sane "uplifted"- -a fact which in no way prevents many of us from attempting to uplift and improve the minds and habits of our neighbors. It is a temptation which besets editors with peculiar forceprobably because of all men they have the freest chance of talking without waiting to hear the ensuing reply. Fear of being "uplifted may keep many from the exhibition of one of the most impressive and dramatic of the recent. films-"Deliverance." Deliverance" is the presentation of the life-story of Helen Keller, the woman whose conquest of the realms of silence and night mark the beginning of an epoch in the world of education. "Deliverance" is the record of a heroic mind shown forth vividly and poignantly. It should not be avoided because it happens to point a moral. At a recent exhibition of this film in New York a spectator was overheard to say, as he read the programme before the picture began, "Deliverance: Helen Keller's Message to the World!' Humph! that is enough to spoil it for me." But one who observed this same spectator's face as the eventful story of Helen Keller's life flashed across the screen knew that his prophecy of disappointment had not been fulfilled by the drama itself. To praise "Deliverance" is not to say that the film is artistically faultless. It does contain dramatic moments which we have seldom seen equaled on the silvered screen. The inherent power of this story of tragedy and triumph sweeps away all minor impediments to its complete acceptance. But from this film a critic might draw lessons concerning the pictured drama of very wide application. The film is artistic when it is simplest, most imaginative when it does not strain after what passes with most moving-picture directors for imagination. It is instructive when it does not attempt to instruct, and justifies the spectator's criticism which we have already quoted only when it seeks to drive home lessons and precepts which are sufficiently obvious in themselves to be classed as axiomatic. Why moving-picture directors, possessed of a medium which knows no limitation of time or space, who have at their command earth, sea, and sky, should find it impossible to express themselves without leaning heavily on allegorical figures which died (and should have been buried) in the days of Pope, is one of the puzzles which we cannot attempt to solve. The story of Helen Keller in "Deliverance looms, like a mountain peak above the valley mist, over the non-essential trivialities with which it has been surrounded. A WORD FOR ITALY SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM SIENA T is with the greatest pleasure that one reads in an Italian paper of a valuable article published in The Outlook, in which a claim is made for Italy's rights and for fair treatment of her. One who has lived in the country for many years and who has Italy's cause deeply at heart cannot do otherwise than thank The Outlook for what it has done. It is doubtful whether the American people have any idea of the deep feeling of injury and pain and injustice which fills the heart of all Italians to-day. This country went into the war at a moment when all seemed dark for her allies, and when she herself was but very meagerly prepared for such an important step. She was poor, imperfectly equipped, full of internal dissensions and struggles, and the future looked uncertain and forbidding. Yet the nation came together, every sacrifice possible was made, and she was ready to defend her rights, and with them the rights of the civilized world; , and so, when the moment came, without any hesitation, Italy went forward. All the best blood of the country was stirred. Old memories were awakened, old wrongs were to be redressed, but-and this is what the outside world does not perhaps understand Italy went forward to do her part and to give her last man in the cause of righteousness and justice, and to help to right the wrongs of the worldthe wrongs which seemed to be on the throne and to threaten to overthrow all rights. Still, there are many persons outside of Italy who wish to prove that her assistance was as nothing, that she did not take Trent and Trieste, that it was entirely owing to the good soldiery of England and France that the Piave was crossed, and that all the deeds which were worth while were owing to some one else, but not, of course, to Italy! This is a good deal to bear; now comes this question of Fiume. If there was ever a case where " Mind your own business" was the right expression to use, it is now. Fiume intends to be Italian; it is the wish of almost all her population, and Italian she must be. Just now, when Italy is looking forward to an increased commercial growth, a development of all her industries and exports, and to an improvement in her financial condition, greatly weakened by the war, it is very hard to have her accused of "Imperialistic aspirations. The "redeemed lands" are only what she has for generations tried to liberate and to bring back to their rightful gov ernment. Fiume belongs naturally and geographically to the same scheme. Why must every one outside interfere with its being Italian when that is what most of its population is and wants to be? Italy has borne her part with the bravest, and has suffered more than perhaps the world knows. Her soldiers have fought like lions, and died, too, when need be, like men. There was Caporetto, it is true; but must that weakness, that treachery, to which the soldiers who swerved were falsely led, be forever held up against a nation of brave men? Italy did hold her own after that heart-breaking time. She did conquer her enemies and drive out the invader. And no one in Italy ever says that she is not grateful to the bottom of her heart for all the help she had from other nations, though it is true that she held back the enemy herself and that hers was the final victory. The American people have no idea how this Latin people feels these humiliations. I believe they would be sorry if they did, to know that this land is hurt to the heart, and that these misunderstandings and mistaken views of Italy's part in the war will take years to be forgotten and wiped out. Siena, Italy. KLYDAS R. STEEGE. DE LI'L ROAD TO RES' Ol' mammy gwine to tell yo' Yo' gwan down de norf-road jes' li'l' piece, Den yo' tu'n mouty smaht to de eas', 'N' yo' gwan-gwan-gwan, 'N' yo' gwan twell yo' fin' De house whaih he liv', but nary sign Den yo' tu'n mouty smaht to de sout', Wid uh high silk hat 'n' sho' 'nuf ves'. Den yo' tu'n mouty smaht to de wes', 'N' yo' gwan twell yo' fin' Yo' don' got to de place whaih yo' gwine. De en' ob de road am mammy's bres', 'N' yo' tu'n mouty sof' to yo' res', To yo' res', 'N' yo' tu'n mouty sof' to yo' res'. DEY DON' KNOW Dat ol' Possum in de tree, he is waitin' jes' to see To sleep or awake, which road he gwine take Dail's Brer Rabbit in de patch, knowin' w'en he lif' de latch To sleep or awake, which road he gwine take Jay-Bird settin' daih in blue, he's uh cungerin' 'bout it too, To sleep or awake, which road he gwine take Sly ol' Red-Fox slippin' by, he'll cal'late wid ha'f an eye To sleep or awake, which road he gwine take Brer Red-Fox he don' know, he don' know, Mr. Gray-Owl say'n' "Who wh-o-o" reck'n he know fuh sho To sleep or awake, which road he gwine take Ol' Gray-Owl sez "Who wh-o-o?" sez" Who wh-o-o?" Yo' ol' Mammy, by de baid, is uh, study'n' in huh haid To sleep or awake, which road he gwine take |