perience to allow either superficial differences or superficial likenesses between the two English-speaking nations to endanger their common interests. Those common interests are not racial. It is true that many Americans trace their ancestry to the British Isles. On the other hand, there are many Americans with no British blood in them who are as much concerned with the common interests of America and Great Britain as any other Americans can be. The common interests of the two countries are not primarily linguistic or literary, though the common language and to some extent the common literature must necessarily serve as a bond of union; but, as has been pointed out, the common language is also a cause of friction, for, by virtue of that common language, each understands the criticism of the other as it understands the criticism of no other nation. The bond of union between the two countries is not historical. There is as much in the history of each to alienate the other as there is to attract. What serves as the basis of AngloAmerican comity is the common ideal, the common faith in the principles of justice and liberty, the common effort for the justification of that faith through the operations of just and free government. In a letter to The Outlook which was received too late to be incorporated among the expressions of opinion concerning "The Common Weal of English-speaking Peoples" as recorded elsewhere in this issue, Lady Astor, native of America and Member of the British Parliament, has expressed this common faith in common effort very happily. We are glad of the circumstances that enable us to give her statement on this page. In order to carry out this common task which of itself will develop comity it is not necessary for either country to yield anything of value. Anglo-American comity will not mean a sacrifice on the part of either nation of any element of sovereignty or national strength. It will not be served by sentimentalism or promoted by arguments for peace and tranquillity at any price. Such comity as is worth cultivating is consistent with the frankest exchange of opinion and utmost honesty of expression, though it certainly will not be injured by the observance on each side of the canons of courtesy. The one certain destroyer of co-operation between Great Britain and America is the violation on either side of the principles which lie at the root of that common faith. It is not criticism that is going to injure Anglo-American relations, but the things which may make criticism just and true. Whatever in each country pro LADY ASTOR'S MESSAGE TO THE READERS OF THE OUTLOOK I BELIEVE firmly in the vital necessity for the closest intercourse and co-operation between the Englishspeaking peoples. It is essential to the progress of the world out of its present discontent, poverty, and discord. All human advance comes from moral and spiritual growth, and, in my opinion, the movement for moral and spiritual reform is more active among the English-speaking peoples than among any others, though it is apparent there too. In the late war the attitude of the English-speaking peoples was fundamentally the same. Despite all subsequent disagreements about the League of Nations, I believe their attitude towards war and the need of international co-operation to substitute a process of reason and justice for recourse to arms, is even now substantially the same, and will erelong show itself in some practical form. The United States have taken the lead, closely followed by Canada, in endeavoring to free mankind from the curse of alcoholism. Great Britain, following the lead of Australia and New Zealand, took the lead in giving the suffrage to women. And "All criticism is bound to seem, if not to be, unfair once in a while," we replied. "It depends upon one's point of view. We frequently disagree with our critics; but so does every one. Had you something in particular on your mind?" "Yes, indeed," he said. "It is this: The other day I read a review of the book of a very well known poet-a man who did much excellent work of an idealistic kind in his youth. His ballads, the world has always maintained, are extremely fine. He is acknowledged to be a master of a certain form of verse; and his cadences have flowed over many a golden page in the past, and have brought him well-deserved fame. He has sung beautifully of nature, and he has added his charming share to the harvest of English song. I have always delighted in his graceful, vivid-yes, and sometimes inspiredpoetry. He had imagination and human sympathy; but when the war came I noticed that he was almost silent. Once in a long while something would come from his pen, but he was really shocked into quiet by the terrible events of the the record of South Africa in overcoming the racialism and separatism which is still devastating other peoples is only manifesting the spirit which made possible the two greatest political unions in the world-the United States and the British Commonwealth of Nations. There are many other fields-especially in the sphere of social reforms-in which the progressive spirit is creative and triumphant among the Englishspeaking peoples. The closer the association and the more active the co-operation between the Englishspeaking peoples, the better for themselves and the better for the world. There is, in particular, no region in which this association and cooperation is more urgently needed than in helping the backward peoples of the globe in education, social science, business enterprise, and government. Unless the progressive peoples look after them they will fall victims to the sinister autocratic and anarchic agencies now seeking to devour them and against which they are quite unable to defend themselves. world. Those who had smiled at him because they contended that heretofore he had always written too much-as if one can write too much if the output is good!-were the first to attack him for his brief poetical vacation. You see, you cannot please everybody, and there is little use in trying. Then, later, he poured out some songs in sharp criticism of the attitude of certain stay-athomes when democracy and the world seemed going down in chaos. They were poems of an exceeding bitterness, and evidently they came from a full heart, from a spirit that was torn and tormented and agonized by the dilettante note which ran through our socalled civilization-among the unthink. ing rich, in particular. He became almost vitriolic in his condemnation; just as Kipling and William Watson did during the Boer War. Personally, I found these poems of his infinitely more interesting than his former tinkling, much as I had admired some of his earlier work; and I wrote and told him so asked him, begged him, even implored him, to continue to speak out his mind in lyrical language whenever he felt the occasion justified his strong and iron utterance. He did so. Not at my urging, you may be sure; but merely because he had the courage to become a critic of life as well as a dreamer of dreams. "Well, the other day he gathered together these later songs of his, and I wish you could have read the biting and jibing criticisms that have come under my eye! They have lashed him to the mast, as the common phrase runs; they have scolded him, and told him to get back to the swashbuckling period of his youth, and not attempt to redeem the earth. They have loudly called him a bit of a fool for trying to become a politician in rhyme, forgetting that irony is one of literature's greatest weapons. They have dressed him down, called his utterances feeble and futile and tawdry, with no relation to true poetry, made fun of what they term his cheapness. They have failed completely, in other words, to see that this poet could do nothing else than speak as he felt. They would have him, in the face of a world war, continue to moon about the moon; they would put him under a glass case and command him to be calm when his gentle and manly heart was torn by the conditions of the hour in which he lived. They do not realize that to-day a poet is not merely a poet; he is a man of action, a man furiously interested in what goes on about him; and he can no more chirp the same old songs of running brooks and daffodils when the world seems racing to destruction than a doctor could remain at home during an epidemic. "New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth, sang Lowell; and no truer words were ever said. Poets nowadays do not look like the world's conception of makers of rhyme. They are normal, full-blooded, but sensitive men, and they cut their hair and refuse to wear flowing bow ties. Pose has disappeared. There is no need of dandyism in these rushing and thrilling days. But there is great need of something else: men who can stand aloof from life, and yet be a part of it; who can analyze, suggest, criticise, and blame, yet forgive too when that is necessary and logical. If, through the nobility of his art, a poet can help to cleanse and reform a passionate world gone wrong, then he is rendering a double service to mankind; and he need not, after all, fear any group of grasshopper critics." WHY IS THE BIG STORY? Ο NE does not have to be either a prophet or a son of a prophet to predict that there will be but one outstanding piece of news in the morning papers of July 3. The "big story" on that day will not relate to the Silesian question, it will not relate to the League of Nations, nor to any doings of statesmen. We feel safe in adding that it will have little or nothing to do with the publication of a new volume of poetry. The "big story" of July 3 will be eagerly perused by stalwart adherents of The Outlook, by those whose weekly diet is composed chiefly of the editorials in the "New Republic" or the "Weekly Review," and by devoted readers of the "Atlantic Monthly." Ministers will soothe consciences disturbed by their interest in this story by persuading themselves that they are looking for material for sermons upon the evils of this day and generation. Gentle ladies will inquire of each other, "Did you see about that disgusting affair in Jersey City?" But they will read the story of it nevertheless. And there will be thousands of others who will turn to the "big story" frankly, joyously, and unashamed, for the sufficient reason that they wish to see who knocked whose block off. Do we need to explain further that we are referring to prospective accounts of the affair between one Jack Dempsey and Monsieur Georges Carpentier of France? There is probably little more need to make such an explanation than there is to dilate upon the fact that a prize-fight for the championship of the world is surrounded by an atmosphere which makes for neither clean sport nor social benefit. Such a fight is a Mecca of gamblers and an open invitation to the spirit of corruption and brutality. The insanely large reward for eminence in the ring (a reward no less disproportionate than that which the world gives to certain unsocial forms of finan cial achievement), the army of parasites and lily-livered spectators who stand ready to hoot at fighters whose poorest effort they would be afraid to imitatethese are features the existence of which intelligent people will grant without argument. It is perhaps less generally recognized that these are features which do not wholly account for the almost universal interest in such an affair. The race is interested, and rightly interested, in physical achievement. It is interested, and rightly interested, in physical achievements which imply a superlative co-ordination of brain and brawn. It is interested in courage, it is interested in those who attain to the highest rank in their profession, no matter what that profession may be. The DempseyCarpentier fight contains all these perfectly normal and wholesome elements. In addition, it is a contest between national champions, selected by individual achievement, even if not, so far as the American contestant is concerned, by popular assent. It has also, in the case of the French champion, in addition to individual achievement, the romantic element which springs from a picturesque personality and a career made honorable by something more than the power to deliver physical blows. These are things to be remembered when your eye falls upon the page-wide headlines of July 3. The fact that Mr. and Mrs. Richman, Poorman, Beggarman, Thief, Doctor, Lawyer, Merchant, Chief, will turn to the news of the outcome of the fight in Jersey City with avidity need not be taken as a sign of the total depravity of the human race. Let this fact rather be used to encourage such elements of honesty and fair play as still remain in the world of commercialized pugilism, and to stimulate the search for a method by which gambling, yellowness within and without the ring, and the lure of delirious rewards shall at least be minimized. It will not be an easy task. I HORSES AND ASSES A POLL OF THE PRESS ON ADMIRAL SIMS'S SPEECH 'N addressing the English Speaking Union at a recent luncheon in London, Admiral Sims was reported as saying: There are many in our country who, technically, are Americans, some of them naturalized and some born there, but none of them Americans at all. They are American when they want money, but Sinn Feiners when on the platform. . . . They are like zebras, either black horses with white stripes or white horses with black stripes. But we know they are not horses-they are asses. Each of these asses has a vote, and there are lots of them. The "zebras" to which Admiral Sims referred, the New York "Tribune" points out, "were not the Irish collectively, nor the so-called Irish-Americans collectively. His knowledge of a vast number who have gallantly served side by side with him forbids such a thought, He assailed only the radical Sinn Feiners." His statement, however, was received in three ways and by three sets of Americans. I The first set is made up of the extreme radical Americans of Irish descent and the few Americans of other descent who sympathize with them and who are, in general, anti-British. They were indignant, expressing themselves in the lurid language of the Sioux Falls "Press," for instance. That South Dakota paper says: Sims is so much pro-English that he is always saying something, trying to please the British Empire. Sims has a right to please England and praise her, but he should renounce his American citizenship so as not to embarrass others by the position he takes. It is to be hoped that Denby will call Sims home and that Congress will strip him of his position. Then if he desires to coddle and be coddled by the English he will be at liberty to do so without embarrassing any one by his milk-andwatery Americanism. Other extremists were merely contemptuous or sinister, expressing themselves as does Mr. Arthur Brisbane in Mr. Hearst's New York "American:" Too much fuss has been made about Admiral Sims's talk, to judge by the Admiral's face, which, in its feeble innocence, reminds you of a baby flying squirrel that you may catch in the hollow of an old apple tree. How much that gallant Admiral hates the Irish or loves the English ought not to be important to any Irishman. But it might be important to the English to have as dear, intimate friend an American official who is head of the War College, and able to give complete information concerning American ships and ship-building and war planning. That might be worth looking into. II The second set of people is a very much larger set, namely, the somewhat cut-and-dried Americans of praiseworthy principles, whose sentiments find voice in such respected journals as the Baltimore "Sun," the Philadelphia "Record," the St. Paul "Pioneer Press," and the "Oregonian" of Portland, Oregon. The Baltimore "Sun" says: ... A naval or a military officer of the United States is bound to be as careful that he talks straight as that he shoots straight. The question of propriety in the utterances of such officers must be determined by the fact that the Army and Navy are the National police force. They represent the whole Nation more nearly than any of its elective officials. They are not supposed to represent parties, factions, or classes. They are educated and trained at the expense of all for the National defense. They are not diplomats, statesmen, or propagandists. They are the strong arm of the Nation, designed to execute orders, not to give them; to carry out the National will, not to form it or to dictate it. Any suspicion of politics, National or international, in the military or naval service is bound to weaken confidence in these arms of defense. The Philadelphia paper concedes that "Admiral Sims is a good man, but he talks too much-a grievous fault in an army or a naval officer. Fortunately there are few similar transgressions in the military service of Uncle Sam." The St. Paul paper declares that "it makes no difference what the Admiral ADMIRAL SIMS AT THE LUNCHEON OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING UNION, LONDON, Left to right, in foreground: Admiral Sims, Lord Desborough, Admiral Beatty said, nor even whether his criticism was On reading the report of the Sims Doubtless Sims will get what is He did. Secretary Denby despatched III The third set of people is represented by the New York "Herald." Of the second Denby order it remarks: If Mr. Denby had despatched that peremptory order to a callow lieutenant having as yet to his credit no great achievement, and this young lieutenant was already booked to sail in three days, the Secretary of the Navy would still have committed an offense against good taste and fair dealing. . . . But to have done such a thing to a man like Admiral Sims is unthinkable and unpardonable. To make the matter worse, it is a fact that there was no boat sailing on which Admiral Sims could have sailed at an earlier date than the boat on which he was already booked to come, and this the Secretary of the Navy knew full well or should have known full well. The Admiral "has said it all before," as the Grand Rapids "News" affirms. It says: What he said in his London address is not new. . . . No American knows more than does Admiral Sims about Irish sentiment and sympathy during the war. He was in command of the American Navy in European waters during the days when we took part in the war. He was stationed for months in Ireland. In his book on the war he has told about the insults our sailors and marines were subjected to by certain portions of the Irish people. . . . Admiral Sims had the hardihood to hit these blatant browbeaters, the courage which few of our men in public life have. The New York "Times" declares there must be "something more than 100,000,000 Americans who, while many of them must disapprove the indiscretion of Admiral Sims in choosing such a subject for discourse on a foreign soil, nevertheless openly, heartily, and emphatically approve his sentiments." Writing in the same journal, Mr. Wallace Irwin, Mr. George Barr McCutcheon, and Mr. Julian Street say: Sims's speech was undoubtedly an indiscretion. So are most brave and true words. He isn't afraid of the Irish and he isn't afraid of his job. His are not the sort of words that can be swallowed with a mealymouthed apology. He may be forced to retire-which will mean that he must face old age without a pension. In such an exigency we are for starting a fund and seeing to it that Admiral Sims is not punished for his work in promoting good feeling between the two great English-speaking nations of the earth.' POLICY IN RELATION TO THE BY ROBERT LANSING T is necessary, in the consideration I of a possible policy for the United States in relation to the Treaties of Peace of 1919 and the League of Nations created by those Treaties, to recognize certain facts which affect the problem and which must be taken into account in attempting to present suggestions which are of practical value in formulating a policy. These facts are as follows: 1. The Treaties of Peace are now in force and the League of Nations has been organized and is, to an extent at least, functioning under the provisions of the Covenant. 2. The American people showed by the election of 1920 that they were opposed to the United States becoming a member of the League of Nations as formed and empowered by the Covenant, and that they were also opposed to the acceptance of certain of the terms of peace.. 3. The enforcement of the terms of peace on the Central Powers is an obligation which is an unavoidable consequence of the war, and it cannot from the point of view of wisdom or honor be avoided by those nations which took part in the conflict and possess the united strength to compel obedience. 4. The public opinion of the world is strongly in favor of some form of international association for the purpose of removing as far as possible causes of war and preserving peace between nations. T is certain that unless the Covenant is amended the United States will not become a member of the League of Nations as now constituted. It is equally certain that the nations now members of the League are strongly desirous that the United States should become a member; and it is fair to presume that, while they will not be willing to abandon, they will be willing to modify, the form and functions of the League by amending the Covenant in certain particulars. It is evident, therefore, that a practical policy might be based on a formula which will provide for the acceptance of the terms of peace and their enforcement, and for the continuance of the League of Nations under a Covenant so modified as to overcome the principal objections of the United States. ROBERT LANSING, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE AND MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN that the Treaties are in force and the In order to determine the effect of the Can a formula be found which will necessity; the second is demanded by include these factors? A practical method of approach in answering this query is to determine what the United States would do if it did not have to reckon with the fact the public opinion of the world, includ- The Treaties of Peace of 1919 confided jects, although they are essentially different in nature. The enforcement of the terms of peace manifestly requires an agency possessing the physical might to compel obedience. Its powers should cease with full compliance with the terms. The removal of the causes of war and the preservation of peace, in my judgment, ought to be by pacific means if the results are to be permanent, since coercion almost invariably arouses discontent, resentment, and a spirit of retaliation. The confiding of the enforcement of a part of the terms of peace to the League of Nations, though many of the terms were under the Treaties to be enforced by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, compelled the recognition of the possession of superior physical might by certain nations, and this recognition is shown by the creation of the Council of the League, which is to be controlled in fact by the Five Principal Powers. The consequence was that the principle of the equality of nations, elemental to a permanent organization devoted to the pacific removal of causes of war, was subordinated to the principle that the possessors of superior force had the right to determine international action, a principle essential to treaty enforcement, but not essential to peaceful settlements. The qualities of universality and permanency, which the League of Nations. ought to have, were thus seriously impaired by clothing it or its Council with authority to enforce certain provisions of the treaties, especially as no provision is made in the Covenant for extinguishing the right to employ force after the terms of peace have been fully complied with and the need of coercion no longer exists. Under present international conditions there should be, in my opinion, two distinct agencies, each functioning within its own independent sphere. One of these agencies should be for the enforcement of all of the terms of peace and based on the possession of physical might by the nations composing the agency. The other should be for the removal by peaceful and not coercive methods of the causes of war and based on the equality of nations. I will later develop these views more fully. It is my only purpose at the outset to state certain propositions in order that the reader may more readily follow the line of thought presented. The logical and practical agency for all treaty enforcement, and not merely for the enforcement of certain of the terms of peace as it now is, is under the Treaties the existing Supreme Council, consisting of the Five Principal Powers, namely, the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. The agency for the prevention of future wars may be the League of Nations, or rather the Assembly of the League, for the Council of the League without the conventional right to direct the use of force has no logical reason for existence in its present form, though expediency may require its continuance if the present structure of the League is preserved. A PRACTICAL Course of action to bring about this readjustment under present conditions would be the following: 1. The separation of the Covenant of the League of Nations from the terms of peace and its treatment as an agreement independent and distinct from the Treaties of Peace. 2. The elimination from the terms of peace by amendment or reservation of all objectionable articles, such as those relating to Shantung, to labor, etc. 3. The amendment of the terms of peace by inserting, in place of "the League of Nations," "the Principal Allied and Associated Powers" or "the Supreme Council" or, in some cases, "an International Commission." 4. The ratification of the Treaties of Peace in amended form or with reservations. In regard to the Covenant, it might be amended by eliminating all provisions Keystone conferring on it, directly or by implica tion, any executive, legislative, or judicial powers, such as are included in the articles dealing with guaranties, with mandates, with sanctions, and with other subjects which impose on the members moral as well as legal obligations. A further amendment, in accordance with this idea, would be to abolish the present Council of the League and confide all the functions and activities of the Council to the Assembly as now constituted in so far as such functions do not require the exercise of coercive power of any sort. By adopting this suggested method of readjustment the chief defect of the Treaties caused by delegating to one agency two classes of functions which logically belong to two independent agencies would be cured. TH HE advisability of preserving generally the actual terms of peace imposed on the Central Powers, with certain modifications, has never been seriously questioned. In fact, every plan proposed looking toward the restoration of a state of peace is based on the preservation of those terms in so far as American interests are affected. A necessary consequence of accepting the terms is that there shall be an international agency for their enforcement. That agency is logically the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, represented by the Supreme Council, as I have already pointed out, since they possess the physical might to compel compliance with the terms. Turning now to the organization of a general agency for the prevention of wars, the following discussion seems necessary to a right understanding of the subject. It is essential, in the first place, to recognize the fundamental principle that all nations, regardless of their relative size, resources, and physical power, are in times of peace, when law rather than force is dominant, equal in that each possesses sovereignty and independence, qualities which cannot be limited and exist in fact. This statement is at the same time a legal maxim and a legal fiction; but it must be recognized as an accepted principle appli THE BUILDING IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, IN WHICH THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS MEETS cable to international relations, since the relative measure of physical might and the inequality between nations only find actual expression in war when force supersedes law in regulating such relations. To recognize the inequality of power in the pacific relations between nations is to substitute physical force for legal right. It amounts to the suppression of the rule of law and the adoption of the rule of might. It is, in fact, the substitution of the ways of barbarism for the ways of civilization. Evidently the use of force must be predicated on the inequality of nations, since only powerful nations can exercise actual coercion. An organization with authority to use force thus unavoidably destroys the legal equality of nations and imposes in times of peace an international relationship which is normal solely in times of war, or in that period between the negotiation of a peace and full compliance with the terms imposed by the victors. The result of such a provision would be to establish, in place of a universal association of equal nations, a military alliance of a few powerful nations, which together possess the power to compel obedience. In the event of such an alliance being created, the nations composing it will certainly assume the right to determine when they will use force and when they will not use it. This means nothing less than a primacy of great military Powers possessing to the extent of their combined might an absolute dictatorship over world affairs." In time of war such a primacy may be, and doubtless is, justifiable and necessary; in time of peace, never, for it ignores and, in truth, destroys the sovereignty and independence of all nations other than those composing the group of primates. It cannot be stated too emphatically that an organization of the world based on the theory that nations in times of peace are unequal and that the strong nations, because of their strength, are entitled to dictate to others possesses none of the elements which make for permanent unity or for permanent peace. Law is the very corner-stone of peaceful intercourse between nations, and equality is fundamental to the universal and persistent application of law and principles of justice. Our present social and political institutions depend on the recognized equality of individuals before the law. It has taken centuries of struggle to develop this precept and make it a vital force in modern civilization. To deny it in the case of the society of nations is to reject the lessons of history and to check the advance of human progress. Its denial would mean a reversion to that primitive state of human society in which the individual took whatever he was able to take and held in possession whatever he was able to hold. A union of nations to prevent international wars is manifestly intended to operate in times of peace. Hence it follows, if the foregoing views are admitted, and I do not see how they can be logically rejected, that the accepted principle of the |