a theoretical shutting out of mere numbers; it is in particular a shutting out of the kind of people we want. THE ALLIES MUST ACT IN ACCORD W "critical HAT will be the outcome of the situation in Upper Silesia depends upon the promptness of action of the Supreme Council representing the leading Allied Powers of Europe. The danger lies in the difficulty of procuring unity of purpose and unity of action. Neither German military forces nor Polish insurgents should be allowed to control in any part of Upper Silesia. It is all, legally, and should be actually, under the control of the Allies until a decision is reached by the Supreme Council as a result of the recent plebiscite and in accordance with the provisions of the Versailles Treaty. Delay in bringing things to a point is dangerous. A decision once reached, however, it is plainly for the Allies to enforce that decision, regardless of opposition. Lloyd George's recent utterance in the House of Commons has been misinterpreted both by the Poles and by the French press. It is not the case, as French writers have assumed, that the English Prime Minister invited German troops to march against Poland, or even to march against Polish insurgents in Upper Silesia. What Lloyd George said in effect was that the Allies should insist upon compliance with the Treaty of Versailles by all parties concerned, and that if they fail to make the Treaty respected they must not be surprised if Germany enforces its own rights under the Treaty in Upper Silesia. He said: We must adhere to the Treaty, whether it is for or against us. I dislike the sort of trifling which says, "After all, they are only Germans." They are entitled to everything the bond either imposes upon them or gives them and we ought to judge impartially, with a stern sense of justice, whether it is for us or against us. Fair play is what Great Britain stands for and I hope she will stand for it to the end. I hope that although they are Germans we will show all the more that we will stand for fair play, and our authority will be all the greater for it. Mr. Lloyd George might have added that likewise, in the event of failure by the Allies to maintain fair play, no one should be surprised at the effort of the Poles to enforce what they regard as their rights. As the discussion has gone on it is noteworthy that all parties concerned declare their intention of abiding by the Treaty of Versailles. The French Premier, M. Briand, has said: "France bases her position on the Treaty of Versailles, and has no wish to escape its terms." Even General Korfanty, who has led the Polish insurgents movement, is reported to have declared that he would withdraw as soon as the Allies reach a decision. But, unfortunately, he followed this remark with the statement that, if the decision is not just-that is, as he went on to explain, "if it does not give Poland the territory marked by the Korfanty line”—anarchy will follow. The French declare, on the other hand, that the Poles are not the only offenders. The situation is full of explosive possibilities, but it more and more seems incredible that France and England should not realize the necessity of joint action following prompt and reasonable decision as to the future of Upper Silesia. Officially Poland disavows the Korfanty demonstration. Neither Poland nor Germany nor, indeed, any single country has the right of decision. If the Paris Conference had seen clearly and acted wisely, the trouble would not have arisen. But it allowed itself to follow the idealistic plan of "selfdetermination" by a popular vote in a country in which more voters inclined to Germany and those voters inclined to Poland were massed largely in separate sections of the territory; the Paris Conference also confused the issue by providing that the disposition of Upper Silesia should not rest on a total vote but should be influenced by the vote of "communities," as stated in one place in the Treaty, or, as stated in another place, by "population areas." The crisis and dangers that have resulted illustrate perfectly the absurdity of this kind of "self-determination." THE ISSUE IN ITALY N May 15 elections were held O'throughout Italy. The main fight Ο was between the Constitutionalists and the Socialists. The Constitutionalists won handsomely according to the present returns. A significant feature of the elections was that the Socialist vote, reasonably decreased almost everywhere, was even smaller where Communist candidates were on the ticket. The main trouble in Italy has been the agitation engendered by these Communists. A year ago Italy faced an industrial upheaval. The Communists seized docks, railways, factories, and banks. They had frequent clashes with the troops. At this moment Giolitti became Premier. Nearly eighty years old, he combines a patriarch's patience with a youth's dash. He called the employers and workers together and brought the latter to agree to a truce by promising to introduce into Parlia ment a bill providing that the workers should share in the technical and financial management of the factories. At the same time he reduced the Italian budget deficit. Though the industrial disorders calmed down, enough trouble remained to make the Prime Minister ask the King to dissolve Parliament and to call a general election to determine whether the people approved or disapproved of the Giolitti policies. So far there seems to be no mistake in the reply. The Socialists, who had a greater representation in Parliament than their party strength warranted, are now put in a juster proportion. One reason for this has been the activities of the Facsisti, the organization of extreme, antiBolshevik Nationalists who take their name from their symbol, the fasces, borne by the Roman lictors, and signifying respect for law and justice. It is impossible not to sympathize with the sober section of the Italian Socialists. They are in no wise represented by the Communists, who are simply a handle for Lenine-Trotsky propaganda. The conservative Socialists place patriotism before any obedience to behests from Moscow; they regard compliance with those requests as treason. Out of the election there will, we believe, arise a governmental administration more decided with regard to law and order than its predecessor has been, much as the "masterly neutrality" of that administration during the past year has been admired in many quarters. THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TH HE RT. HON. JOHN HENRY WHITLEY Is the new Speaker of the British House of Commons. Strangers visiting the Houses of Parliament are always impressed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. His power and his exercise of it are often in striking contrast to what those strangers have noted in their home Parliaments. As he sits in his wig and robes in his chair on a raised dais in front of a high screen at the north end of the chamber and with the mace, signifying his authority, on the table before him, he appears, somehow, no longer an individual, but the symbol of English parliamentarism. He even seems to that parliamentarism what our written Constitution is to us. When a new Parliament is opened, the members of the House of Commons are summoned to the House of Lords to hear the Speech from the Throne. In the Sovereign's name, they are then asked to choose a Speaker. They retire to the House of Commons to do so. The next day the new Speaker, followed by the Commons, presents himself to the House of Lords, announces his election, and asks for the royal confirmation. Then he demands the ancient rights of the Commons; the most vital of these are liberty of speech and freedom from arrest. The Speaker's power is enormous. When he enters the House of Commons, the attitude of the whole chamber changes, as well it may; for he is like the flag to a body of soldiers on parade. During the outbursts by Irish members in recent years the Speaker has known how to act, and has acted instantly and summarily in naming the offending member who disregards the Speaker's authority in stopping irrelevant and obnoxious speeches. A motion is then in order to suspend that member, and, what is more, the motion may be deIcided at once without amendment or debate. Moreover, if a suspended member refuses to leave the House, the Speaker may suspend him for the remainder of the session. The Speaker's power over debate is as great as it is over discipline; he decides, for instance, whether a motion to close debate may be put or whether it infringes the rights of the minority; he can refuse to entertain any motion if he considers it an abuse of the rules of the House; from his decisions on any points of order there is no appeal. Members of the House of Commons have therefore been careful in choosing a man with such powers-a man who is justly regarded as the "first commoner of the realm." The outgoing speaker, the Rt. Hon. James William Lowther, was Deputy Speaker for ten years before he became Speaker, sixteen years ago. He is a typical English Conservative (the Speaker is always selected by the Government of the day, but it has now become the invariable custom to re-elect him as long as he is willing to serve), educated at Eton and at Trinity College, Cambridge, and belonging to the Athenæum and Carlton Clubs. He must now move from his official residence in the Houses of Parliament and will no longer enjoy his Speaker's salary of $25,000 a year and perquisites in addition to his official residence. The reason is that Mr. Lowther is about to be elevated to the peerage, and therefore he can no longer hold office as a com moner. He is succeeded, as is appropriate, by the man who for ten years has been Deputy Speaker, John Henry Whitley. The new Speaker, while representing the careful training for the office which a Deputy Speaker must needs have, is in striking contrast to his predecessor. Lowther is an aristocrat; Whitley, a democrat; Lowther is a Conservative, Whitley a Liberal; Lowther is a barrister, while Whitley, senior partner in a cotton spinning firm, is a manufacturer. (C) Keystone JOHN HENRY WHITLEY, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS As a merchandising nation, England may, it would seem, appropriately select as the first commoner of the realm a man of business. CLERGYMAN'S AND DAYLABORER'S SALARIES I' T has been said that less than 1 per cent of our active pastors receive $4,000 or more salary. The statement further tells us that hardly 12 per cent receive from $3,000 to $4,000; that only a little over 42 per cent receive $2,000 to $3,000; that less than 10 per cent receive $1,500 to $2,000; that something over 322 per cent receive $1,000 to $1,500; that somewhat less than 39 per cent receive $500 to $1,000; and that about 13 per cent receive $500 or less. It is interesting to compare the average of clergymen's salaries with the average yearly wages of day-laborers. can do this, so long will salaries be kept low. In his Diocesan Convention address the other day in Boston Bishop Lawrence, of Massachusetts, made this. declaration: A clergyman ordained consecrates himself fully and wholly to the work of the Church. It may be that, after some years, he discovers it is impossible for him and his family to live upon his salary. Under that necessity, while it is to be regretted, he may be justified in retiring from the ministry and earning his living in some secular pursuit. When he gives the six days towards earning the living of himself and his family in business or other secular pursuit, he has become a business man, and obtains thereby the higher wage and the advantages of a business man. When, however, he still remains officially in the ministry and uses his Sundays to earn more wages, he is claiming the privileges both of the business man and of the clergyman. Consistency would, it seems to me, move such a man to make his choice between one or the other. The number of clergymen holding this double relation is on the increase throughout the Church, and I believe that, unless there is a bracing up of public sentiment, respect for Holy Orders will decline both in the Church and in the business world. Because the clergy, as a whole, are devoted, heart and soul, to the work of the ministry, we are the more jealous of their good These figures may not be altogether cipitous, a great massive wall of stone reliable. But it is certain that clergymen's salaries are altogether too low. This explains why many men have had to seek employment outside of their profession while endeavoring to fulfill their duties as clergymen. A clergyman in a neighboring State declared that he could not live on his salary. So for the past ten years he has been selling bonds. He now makes a comfortable income. If the parishes which are served really call for a man's full work, and yet the clergymen do go out into business and put quarter or half their time into the distinctive work of the ministry, it is evident that, as long as they two thousand feet high, made so by the splitting and sinking of another portion now under the sea. The only land route to this, the south and southeastern part of the island, is by a precarious trail which leads over the cliff. Residents of both sides may communicate with one another by telephone; but it is much easier to pass to another island and reach the villages by sea than to come over the mountain between. The Hawaiian name, "Molokai nui a hina," means "The Lonely Isle." Molokai is, and always has been, out of the travel route, little frequented even by residents of the other islands, and to many of them a terra incognita. The island is about forty miles long, and averages ten A SCENE IN KALAUAO The figure on the left is that of the late Brother Joseph Dutton. His assistant, Dr. W. J. Goodhue, is the resident physician at Kalauao and is also the editor of the memorial volume referred to in the accompanying editorial comment miles in width; it is volcanic, built by lava flows, and is geologically older than Hawaii and its near neighbors. In 1908 the American battleship fleet was on its way around the world, and, at the request of President Roosevelt, it made a special deviation from its course in order that a salute might be fired in honor of the stricken men and women of the leper villages. The great battleships steaming under the shadow of the mountains of Molokai as they reverberated with the thunder of this unprecedented salute made a picture which no witness of the incident has forgotten. That is one of the reasons why, when the time came for raising money for a National Roosevelt Memorial, the residents of Molokai not only contributed their full quota, but also felt moved to create a memorial of their own. They have purchased several acres of land in a central location and have called it the "Roosevelt Memorial Children's Park," dedicating it "to Theodore Roosevelt, American." A volume containing many tributes to Theodore Roosevelt has been prepared, and from the sale of this volume it is expected that enough money will be raised to erect a memorial tower in this Roosevelt Park. It was an act of poetic imagination to order the battleships to salute the leper villages. It was an act characteristic of Theodore Roosevelt. A RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT IN A LL persons recently escaped from Soviet Russia bear testimony to the strong religious movement, with a peculiar character of its own, which has developed in Moscow and Petrograd during the last year. Its leaders, a well-informed Russian correspondent tells The Outlook, are mostly young parish priests and members of the intelligentzia. The new type of priest, the old. He is a strong adherent to the our correspondent A great number of Christian brotherhoods have of late sprung up in Petrograd. They are established locally, and, including as they do all the religiously inclined persons of the neighborhood, form a kind of community of the early Christian type, founded on charity and brotherly love, everything being shared in common. They hold frequent prayermeetings and religious philosophic debates. At their head usually stands the parish priest of the new type. Cases of laymen entering Holy Orders are becoming more and more frequent. Religious debates are taking place more and more frequently in the churches after service, especially in labor districts. One such debate has been described by an eye-witness-a it is explained, differs essentially from man completely alien to religion and the Church, who confessed that it had left an indelible impression on his mind: The small church, dimly lit by smoky strips of wood (wax candles being no longer obtainable), was as crowded as on a church holiday. The people all belonged to the working class, the women with shawls on their heads, the men in working clothes. Men were in the majority. On the raised dais before the altar stood Professor Lossky, small in stature, powerful in speech. He spoke of the soul of the universe, of the knowledge of God, his philosophic intuition closely interwoven with the doctrine of the Orthodox religion. He spoke clearly and simply. After he had finished there was a long silence. Then a Communist, a young man of about twenty, the President of the Local Union of Communist Youths, rose up and began to speak, vehemently attacking God and the Church. And suddenly, as if at a given signal, the whole congregation began to sing a hymn. A group of young people-a small one-in their turn started the "Internationale." And for a long while the two tunes-the prayer and the "Internationale"were blended together, until the "Internationale" was drowned by the mighty swell of the hymn. After that Lossky spoke again, and when he had finished the whole crowd fell on their knees and prayed long and fervently... And the majority of that crowd were working men. . . To me it was a strange and uncanny sight. on ... Professor Berdiaiev, the well-known philosopher and expert Russian Church questions, expressed the following opinion on the spiritual evolution now going on in the Russian Church: "A new Orthodox Church is in process of construction. It will be free and more Christian. The revolution has brought liberty to the Russian Church and broken her chains of slavery." NEW JERSEY MUST LOOK TO HE OUTLOOK has repeatedly com Tmented on the promptness of "Jer sey justice." A good deal can be done in the courts of other States than New Jersey. It is being done. The "Daily Star," of Norwich, New York, recounts the speeding up of a trial in that place. On January 30 Herbert Smith was alleged to have shot and killed Lewis Johnson. Smith was not arrested until February 19. On February 20 Judge Abraham L. Kellogg, of the Supreme Court, called Governor Miller over the telephone and asked for a special Grand Jury to consider the case. The request was granted. Under the New York State laws three weeks' notice had to be given (and very properly so) of the calling of a special Grand Jury as well as an extraordinary term of the Supreme Court. The Governor detailed Justice Kellogg to preside. The Grand Jury met on March 17. Smith was indicted on March 18. After indictment he was brought to trial at the earliest possible date. The work of securing a jury was accomplished within twenty-four hours. On March 31 the trial was directed to proceed. On April 5 Smith was convicted of murder in the first degree. Thus, only thirteen days elapsed from the date of his indictment to the day his trial was begun, and only eighteen days elapsed from the date of his indictment to the date of his conviction. New York State courts have, we believe, few, if any, parallels of a conviction secured, in a first-degree murder case, eighteen days after the indictment was returned. By his quick action and speedy trial Justice Kellogg did much to correct "the law's delay," of which we often hear a good deal. If such records are repeated, New Jersey may have to look well to her laurels. SOMETHING OLD AND Tor a few letters have drifted into NEW FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, CHICAGO tiful structure in America. But we are For the benefit of Mr. Buck and others The Outlook's editorial rooms this FEDERAL CONTROL OF past week of a similar tenor to the following: How delightful was your article on "Accuracy," on page 52 of The Outlook of Wednesday, May 11, 1921. I enjoyed every word of it. . . . On page 48 of the same issue there is a picture of the new Field Museum in Chicago. The very last paragraph of the article describing this Museum says, "At present there is not only not a tree, but not even a blade of grass within a half-mile of the Museum." I distinctly see three trees, to say nothing of the one in the foreAnd ground, staring me in the face! grass? Et autour des deux arbres sur l'autre côté du lac; si-non herbe, quoi donc? One correspondent bursts into verse to the following effect: I'd never seen a treeless tree, I'd never hoped to see one; But here we have grass and tree, Where we're told there be none. The explanation of all this is to be found in the fact that these readers have strained at a tree and swallowed a Museum. The truth of the matter is that the wrong picture slipped into The Outlook's pages-the picture of the old Field Museum instead of the new one. As one Chicago Outlook reader (his name, we may add for the benefit of those who remember our editorial on accuracy, is Mr. Glen Buck) writes in quite pardonable satisfaction: We were always proud of the old building, for it is truly the most beau A EDUCATION AND WOMAN reader of The Cutlook, The scribed by the Federal Government. We refer to the Snell Forestry Bill. principle of Federal financial co-operation with the States underlies a law already enacted and in operation, that is to say, the Good Roads Bill. Thus we have four great measures, either enacted or about to be enacted, which provide for Federal direction or stimulation of State activities through the purse. The advantages of this form of legislation are many. It would enable the central authority to formulate a broad and general plan in which the interests and welfare of various parts of the country are co-ordinated. It would establish high standards of universal excellence and application. It would foster National sentiment on questions of public welfare. It would enable prosperous and highly developed States to aid, through the Federal Treasury, less prosperous and more backward States. Since a chain can be no stronger than its weakest link, it is of vital interest to New York that the roads, timber, and children of every other State in the Union shall be conserved and well developed. Of all these bills the most appealing to human sympathy and progressive social instincts is the Maternity Bill. It has been under consideration for two years. Statistics and experience show that the kind of maternal supervision provided in this bill might save annually the lives of some 23,000 mothers and nearly 250,000 infants less than a year old. According to the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's bulletin more women between the ages of fifteen and forty-five years die from causes incidental to childbirth than from any other cause except tuberculosis. The general policy of co-operation between the National Government and the State Governments in social welfare legislation is too firmly established to be attacked or changed on fundamental grounds; but there are three objections (C) Harris & Ewing HORACE M. TOWNER to the immediate passage of the Towner Education Bill, the Sheppard Maternity Bill, and the Snell Forestry Bill which ought to be carefully considered. First, the danger that the pendulum may have swung too far in the National direction, and that individuals and organizations are too prone to turn to the power of the Federal Government to establish reforms rather than to the power of education within the States. The Outlook is temperamentally Nationalist and is not a believer in the sanctity of the philosophical doctrine of States' rights. But the American people ought not to become indifferent to the function and powers of the State Governments and shield their indifference by turning to the National Government in the frame of mind of one who says: "Oh, let, George do it." The local processes of educational evolution are slow, and it is easy to get impatient with them, but, generally speaking, it is only by following these local processes that sure progress can be made in a democracy. Second, the cost is to be considered. The people of this country are already bearing an almost intolerable burden of taxation. The country rightly could not count the cost of saving itself and civilization in the World War, but it has assumed debts in the performance of this duty that it must pay before it carelessly promises to spend other large sums of money. Under the Good Roads Bill the Federal Government is proposing to pay $100,000,000 a year for the next two years, and the Snell Forestry Bill would require the expenditure of say $2,000,000 from the National Treasury in 1921-1922, increasing to $8,000,000 at a future date. The Maternity Bill would require $1,480,000 expenditure by the National Government in 1921. No sane person would begrudge the expenditure of this last amount if there were positive assurance that this appropriation were the best way to save the lives of mothers and children now needlessly sacrificed. There enter into the question, however, the thought that the States can effect a more permanent reform in this matter by individual effort, and the fear that these bills may mark too long a step away from a vital principle of our Government. Certainly the expenditures required by these three bills taken together are a factor to be carefully considered by a people already taxed almost to the breaking point. The third objection is one not of principle but of timeliness. In a recent admirable address before the American Newspaper Publishers' Association Postmaster-General Hays outlined the plans of the Administration for a reorganization of the Cabinet Departments of the National Government. Among these plans are the change of the Department of the Interior to the Department of Public Works and "the concentration in that Department of all civil, public works of the Government as well as all those services which have to do with the administration and utilization of the public domain." At the same time there would be created a new department, with a Cabinet Secretary, called the Department of Public Welfare. "In this Department would be placed those bureaus which deal with health and social welfare." This reorganization questions generally and with education plan seems to us excellent and desirable, and we therefore think that Congress would do well to wait until the Administration has time to put this reorganization into effect before passing any farreaching legislation on public education and public hygiene. GERMANY PROMISES Ꭱ AGAIN EJOICING over Germany's latest acquiescence in the terms presented to her by the Supreme Council of the Allies seems somewhat premature. There may be a world of difference between acquiescence in those terms and compliance with them. There is no evidence that Germany's word is any better than it ever was. Midnight of May 12 was the hour set for the advance of Allied troops into the Ruhr and the occupation of Germany's chief industrial center in case the German Government failed to agree to the Allies' conditions. The Government then in power in Berlin could not, for political reasons, yield. The situation was much like that immediately preceding the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. As then, so now there was a change of Ministry and Germany nominally at least did what was demanded of her. After certain elements had had their chance to express defiance and welcome invasion rather than surrender, and after considerable political coquetry, Dr. Wirth, leader of the Centrists, formed a coalition Cabinet, composed of representatives of different parties so selected that no one party could be held responsible. Thereupon the new German Government announced itself as "fully resolved" to carry out "without reserve" the obligations and guaranties prescribed by the Reparations Commission, the measures of disarmament notified to Germany by the Allies, and the trial of war criminals and the other unfulfilled portions of the treaty. When the word to this effect was announced in the British Parliament, it was greeted as a great triumph for Mr. Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister. No one grudges him or M. Briand, the French Premier, any credit for this result that is due them; but it is important that the free nations of the world should not be deceived as to the nature of what has happened. So far as actual deeds of reparation, disarmament, and performance of other acts of compliance with the Treaty are concerned, the situation now is precisely what it was before the twelfth of May. This is not to say that no progress has been made. In two respects at least there has been appreciable gain. In the first place, Germany obviously puts herself on record as appreciating rather more definitely than heretofore the fact that she did not win the war. That is some gain. It helps |