ended, since the power to declare war implies the power to declare peace.

CAN THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS BE TAKEN OUT OF THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES?

THE

HE passage of the Knox Resolution did not attract as much attention as did the suggestion during its debate, by Mr. Lodge, that a treaty with Germany was all the more necessary because the Treaty of Versailles could not be amended to meet American requirements, it being practically impossible to separate. the League of Nations from the rest. Senator Lenroot, on the contrary, thought that the League could be eliminated without destroying the Treaty, and asked if the sections on reparations, boundaries, and the right of occupation would remain after the League was taken out. Mr. Lodge admitted that they would, but added that to eliminate the League from the Treaty would require no less than seventy-two amendments. This is not surprising. It would not, however, necessarily prevent the adoption of the policy laid down by the President in his address of April 12 to Congress:

It would be idle to declare for separate treaties of peace with the Central Powers on the assumption that these alone would be adequate. . .. The wiser course would seem to be the acceptance of the confirmation of our rights and interests as already provided and to engage under the existing Treaty, assuming of course that this can be satisfactorily accomplished.

replaces the old Field Museum, at Jackson Park, once the Fine Arts Building of the World's Fair.

The collections for the World's Fair were so important that a permanent location was the result, made possible by Marshall Field's gift of a million dollars. Mr. Field died in 1906, leaving four million dollars for the erection of a permanent building and four millions for endowment.

The new Museum is, as the illustration indicates, a compact, massive, white marble structure. Its proportions make of it an artistic Ionic unit. It covers eleven acres.

The chief feature of the interior is the great nave, stretching backward from the main entrance and dividing the building from north to south. At right angles to the nave are the thirty exhibit halls on the two main floors. On the third floor the curators and assistants have their rooms. There are also a theater seating a thousand people, a lecture hall, and several small class-rooms. The library comprises over 70,000 volumes.

The exhibits represent an expenditure of more than a million dollars. Besides the departments of botany, zoology, geology, and anthropology, the Museum houses a public school extension exhibit. The finest exhibit of meteorites in the world is owned by the Field Museum. Also in this Museum was first established the method of mounting mammals instead of stuffing them. By this method a plaster cast is made of the animal in some natural position, and over this the skin is stretched. No bones are used, though hoofs and horns are retained. This method makes possible the perfect formation and natura!

position of the animal, impossible by the old method of stuffing.

The site of the new Museum is more practical than that of the old building. It is accessible to every shopper or clerk with only an hour to spare at lunch time.

At present there is not only not a tree, but not even a blade of grass within a half-mile of the Museum. But every one who knows the people of Chicago will realize the wonderful possibilities always open to people of their enterprise.

AN "UNDESIRABLE CITIZEN" DEPARTS

TH

HERE were forty-six members of the Industrial Workers of the World who were sentenced to prison following conviction on charges of violating the Selective Service Law and the Espionage Act during the war. Among these men was "Big Bill" Haywood, formerly secretary of the I. W. W. and its ablest organizer for the cause of revolution.

On the eve of entering upon his sentence of twenty years in the Federal prison at Leavenworth, Haywood jumped his bail and departed, it is believed, for Russia, where, it is said by some, he is expected to play an important part in propaganda work for the Lenine Government. Statements to this effect, however, have had no authentic

corroboration.

Haywood will be remembered not only for his work for the I. W. W., but also for the dramatic and bitter trial in 1907, at which he was charged, together with Moyer and Pettibone, with complicity in the murder of ex-Governor Steunenberg, of Idaho. The only direct evidence against Haywood offered at this trial was in the testimony of the self-confessed murderer Harry Orchard, and the jury released Haywood and his associates on the grounds that a reasonable doubt existed as to their guilt.

There can be no doubt, however, that Haywood and his fellow-defendants were guilty of enough to justify completely President Roosevelt's allusion to them

as "undesirable citizens." It was this phrase (which promptly entered into our National political vocabulary) that called forth from the gentle-hearted Eugene Debs the charge that President Roosevelt had condemned workingmen as murderers because they were objectionable to the trusts that controlled his Administration. Mr. Debs manifested his customary restraint by saying of President Roosevelt that "he uttered a lie as black and damnable, a calumny as foul and atrocious, as ever issued from a human throat." In a later statement President Roosevelt put Haywood and Debs in the same class and said that they "stand as representatives of those men who have done as much to discredit the labor movement as the worst speculative financiers or most unscrupulous employers of labor and debauchers of legislatures have done to discredit honest capitalists and fair-dealing business men. They stand as the representatives of those men who by their public utterances and manifestoes, by the utterances of the papers they control or inspire, and by the words and deeds of those associated with or subordinated to them habitually appear as guilty of incitement to or apology for bloodshed and violence. If that does not constitute undesirable citizenship, then there can never be any undesirable citizens."

The subsequent history of both Haywood and Debs have quite vindicated this statement.

THE MOVIES: THREATENED COMPETITION AND CONTROL

OME leaders in the movie world are alarmed because of two threats to their industry-we refrain advisedly from using the word art. One is a threat of foreign competition, and the other a threat of domestic control.

The fear of foreign competition has arisen from the recent importation of several films which have the right to use that once potent slogan "Made in Germany." These films have been so successful that there is talk of a tariff measure to protect American producers. To any one who has seen such German films as "Passion," "Deception," or "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" the explanation of the perturbation of our producers is obvious. The German film companies, despite some obvious shortcomings, seem to be guilty of employing directors who have ideas in their heads, and these directors have mastered the art of telling their stories logically, directly, and forcibly. Their actors somehow seem able to depend on acting to convey the ideas which the director wishes to convey. The films, compared with most American productions, are virtually captionless.

In none of the three films mentioned

49

EMIL JANNINGS AS HENRY VIII IN "DECEPTION" AT THE RIVOLI THEATER, NEW YORK CITY (POSED AND DRESSED AFTER HOLBEIN'S PAINTING)

was there a single close-up of a tearstained heroine or of the villain's twitching fingers, nor was there a single example of that murderous assault upon the imagination entitled "the flashback." In "Deception," in particular, there were half a dozen occasions which an American director would have seized upon with avidity as excuses for "flashbacks" to make the obvious more obvious. We sighed with relief each time one of these danger-points was safely passed.

Photographically, the German camera work is not the equal of the American standard, but in the presentation of their themes the German directors are very much the superiors of our own. Let us, by all means, refrain from putting a tariff upon foreign movies. Better yet, perhaps the Germans might be permitted to pay part of their reparation money in films rather than marks!

The second threat to our American film producers is contained in the growing demand for the censorship of films, a demand which has been caused by the flood of cheap, tawdry, and degrading films which have been put forth. The more responsible film companies are attempting to combat this demand by a plea to permit the industry to have a chance to clean its own house, a plea

which we may hope is based upon a genuine awakening to the real situation.

With a full appreciation of the provoIcation which has caused the demand for a censorship, it seems to us a demand which should not be granted. Every argument which can be made for a censorship of the movies is equally cogent in regard to every other form of public expression. Likewise every argument against censorship of speech and the press is equally valid against the censorship of the movies. If you censor movies, as some States are even now doing, you open the door to a general censorship which is contrary to every American tradition. If you do not censor the movies, the State still has the same opportunity for control which it has over the spoken and the written word.

The

The American and the British system is not to prescribe in advance what a man shall or shall not say. It is to permit him to say and write what he wishes and then to hold him responsible for the effect of his utterances. American system is not to give to any authority the right to say in advance what may or may not be given the public. It is to throw our citizens upon their own responsibility and then to determine by due process in open court

whether or not they have misused that responsibility.

GO THOU AND DO LIKEWISE

M

́IAMI UNIVERSITY has set an example well worth following. It has established a fellowship in creative art and has chosen as the first holder of this fellowship Mr. Percy MacKaye. Mr. MacKaye's only obligation is to devote himself to the work which pleases him best. He is not required to teach nor to take part in the details of University administration. He has been awarded the fellowship because Miami University believes that he has something definite to offer to American literature and that he ought to have a chance to do creative work free from financial worry. A similar scholarship has been given to Edgar Stillman Kelley, the composer, by The Western College. President Hughes, of Miami University, has said:

I believe there are between fifty and a hundred colleges and universities in the country which could finance a fellowship of from $2,500 to $10,000 out of their own budgets for a year or two, and I am convinced that such a fellowship fortunately started could be supported from private sources. The development of art has always appealed to the wealthy, and an institution that can secure a distinguished creative artist on such a fellowship could, I believe, after demonstrating the worthwhileness of the enterprise, find those among her friends who would gladly maintain it. The Miami plan deserves the compliment of imitation.

THE CHINESE FAMINE

E have kept our readers informed from time to time about

the progress in China of that

most terrible and inexorable form which death takes-famine. As Mr. Malone, an American teacher in China, puts it in his Special Correspondence printed in this issue, it is not a question, Whom shall we save? but, Whom shall we let die? It seems to be difficult sometimes for Americans to appreciate that Chinese mothers and fathers love their children with the same kind of love which makes the American mother and father willing to sacrifice themselves for their children. It has always seemed to us when thinking of the so-called downtrodden races that the plea of Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice" is one of the most pathetic and the most arresting passages of English literature: "Hath not the Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, arms, dimensions, sense, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?" So we wonder, Hath not the China

man the same love for his child or for his mother that an American has? And what more terrible problem can be presented to a son and father who sees on the one side of him his child and on the other side of him his mother slowly dying of hunger? Which shall he save? That is the exact situation in some districts of northern China to-day.

Last January we published an article on the Chinese famine which quoted from the report on famine conditions by Mr. J. J. Underwood, of the Seattle "Times." This report, while unquestionably accurate in its general picture, was perhaps misleading in some details. Mr. Underwood said of the four provinces suffering from famine: "In all these provinces there is scarcely a girl from twelve to twenty years left. They have been sold into slavery and prostitution and deported." A trustworthy American correspondent in China takes exception to this statement. He says that, while there are too many cases in which the girl children are sold, it is unjust to say that all Chinese parents take this method of saving both themselves and their children from physical death. Mr. Underwood criticised the Chinese further by saying: "The rest of China, much of it blessed with abundant crops, sits placidly by superstitiously believing that the spirits intended the drought and famine as a means of regulating the overwhelming population of the land." spondent in China says on this aspect of the question:

Our corre

I am willing to admit that most of what Mr. Underwood has to say on this subject is all too true; and I would be the last one to defend the Peking Government or most Chinese officials on this point. But there are noble exceptions. Some of these noble exceptions will undoubtedly read your editorial, and I should have to blush with shame the next time I see them did I let this statement from an American newspaper reporter pass unchallenged. Does Mr. Underwood not know that the International Committees in the large cities of China which are raising funds for famine relief are mostly, if not all, Chinese and foreign, and that large contributions have been given by the Chinese themselves? Our correspondent relates individual cases of Chinese governors and county officials who are doing fine and efficient relief work, raising money, establishing gruel kitchens, purchasing grain in Manchuria and shipping it into the famine districts, and organizing the starving into self-supporting groups. He reports that Chinese university students are doing notable relief work.

Two women students of Peking University are in Wangtu, where they are running a refuge for girls who had been sold or were in danger of being sold, but were rescued. I

visited this refuge recently. Here are two Chinese girls running this refuge in a strange place, all by themselves, without any direct supervision. Surely China is making progress, especially the women of China.

Of the scores of students of Peking University and Indemnity College who have volunteered for relief work I want to mention one in particular, Mr. C. F. Woon, who probably more than any other has inspired his fellow-students to volunteer for famine relief. He has been out in the famine region himself, writing up the conditions and making strong appeals to his wealthy relatives and friends. He stayed with me on his way into the famine country, leaving this place on a cold morning before daylight, when the temperature was below zero, riding on a load of clothing for the famine sufferers. Do you call this "sitting placidly by"?

It is clear from this testimony that the Chinese are endeavoring to help themselves as well as they can. They certainly deserve all the help that the sympathetic, charitable, and fortunate in other parts of the world can give them.

INEXORABLE FRANCE

W

HEN Germany, about a week before the first of May, offered to pay the Allies two hundred billion gold marks, a great many AmeriAt cans blamed France for saying no. first Germany's offer sounded very reasonable. The Allies had demanded two hundred and twenty-six billions, and Germany had apparently replied with a round two hundred. Twenty-six billions of anything sounds like a good deal; but out of two hundred and twenty-six it is a rather small proportion-certainly of itself not worth a war. Why, it was asked, could not France waive her rights to this extent for the sake of a common peace? Many Americans found in France's refusal a confirmation of their suspicion that France was looking for something else besides reparation.

In part these Americans are right. Important as it is to France that Germany should pay as much as she can to repair the damage she wantonly and wickedly did in her effort to cripple her neighbor, it is still more important to France that Germany should be kept at a safe distance and be rendered incapable of aggression. But to suspect the French people as a whole, or the French Government, of attempting to dominate Europe because France does not acquiesce in the offers that Germany makes and because she wants some more tangible safeguards than paper promises is just what Germany wants our people to do and is what she will find our people will refuse to do when they know the facts.

In the first place, Germany's offer was not what it seemed to be. When ex

amined, it proved to be very far from even an approximation of the Allies' considerate demand.

In order to understand how far Germany's offer fell short from what she justly owes it may be well to refresh one's memory by a recapitulation of the. facts which led up to it.

The Treaty of Versailles, signed by Germany and the Entente Allies, authorized the Reparation Commission to fix the amount of damages suffered by Germany's civilian victims. The Rep aration Commission, after months of study, fixed the amount at a sum less than the claims of the victims. If paid to-day, the amount set by the Reparation Commission would be somewhat over $32,000,000,000.

Anticipating the decision of the Reparation Commission, the Supreme Council of the Allies scaled the expected sum down to a figure representing not what Germany should pay but what she could pay. So the Council presented to Germany a bill which, if paid at once, would amount to about $21,000,000,000, plus an export tax.

In March the Germans made a counter-proposal of only $7,500,000,000, plus the export tax.

Upon this totally inadequate offer being refused, Germany sought to involve the United States as a mediator and made an offer which, if paid to-day, would amount to about $12,000,000,000. Thus the sums may be represented in billion dollars as follows:

First German offer.. 72 Second German offer.................. 12

In the second place, the Allies offered Germany the privilege of paying reparation over a period of forty-two years with interest at 5 per cent. What Germany asked is that the period over which payment could be extended should be seventy-two years and the interest be at 4 per cent. So Germany's offer amounts to putting the payment off into a very far distant field with payment of interest at 4 per cent. And France has to pay 9 per cent in order to borrow!

In the third place, Germany demands that the so-called system of sanctions shall cease. This simply means that there shall be no occupation of her territory except, as the Germans hastily explained on hearing from the rest of the world, that she did not mean that the troops at the bridgeheads should be withdrawn. Of course what Germany demands in this case is that the Allies should virtually accept her word and not demand security. The cool presumption of this proviso is something which the ordinary business man who knows some

thing about credit in business should be able to appreciate.

In the fourth place, there are other provisos in Germany's offer. Among them are that the present basis of production should not be decreased, which means, of course, that the whole of Upper Silesia should go to Germany, results of the plebiscite to the contrary notwithstanding; that the German trade be set free, which means that German coal deliveries under the Treaty stop; that Germany should be subject to an International commission of experts, which means that she should be free from the control of the Reparation Commission established by the Treaty; and that German property abroad should be returned to Germany. In all this Germany acts as if the Treaty were still in the making. If France were to consent to this, the only safeguard she has, the Treaty of Versailles, would be gone. In the fifth place, under the Treaty of Versailles, which was signed nearly two years ago, Germany agreed to pay by this, time, May, 1921, the equivalent of five billion dollars in gold, commodities, ships, securities, or otherwise. On this account Germany has paid some two billion dollars. There is a balance of three billion dollars still owing, which was due on the first of this month. This fact alone is enough not only to justify a refusal to make any more concessions but also justify proceedings to occupy German territory in order. to collect the bill. No business man having experience with such a debtor as Germany has proved to be could be blamed under such circumstances for resorting to a collection agency.

If France is inexorable, there seems to be some reason in her favor. At present the Treaty of Versailles, so far as any

reparation for damage done to France in the past or protection against damage to France in the future is concerned, looks battered. By this Treaty the Germans agreed to disarm, to deliver coal, to bring war criminals to trial, and to make reparations. The Germans have evaded every one of their agreements. So long as that evasion continues, the world will not have peace and the producers of the world will not receive their rewards for their effort. What Mr. Gregg says in his special correspondence in this issue France very well understands: "Every dollar Germany pays in increased wages to her workmen and to France and Belgium for her wanton destruction insures our workmen just so much more wages and work."

It would be better for the world if the wage-earners of England and America understood this as well as France does. But the Germans will not do this unless they are required to do so. Force is the only language they understand. The French, who have the habit of thinking clearly, consistently, and in terms of reality, propose that the Allied

Kirby in the New York World

troops shall occupy the entire Ruhr coal region.

This region is the stronghold of German production. When France first stood at the Marne, she saved herself, but also, though our people did not understand it very clearly, she served the rest of the world. Again she is saving herself, but she is serving the rest of the world as well, as she stands at the borders of the Ruhr.

THE CONTEST LETTERS

WR

E have read many wise editorials upon the effect of the war upon morals and manners. There have not been wanting Jeremiahs who have seen as an effect of the war the total destruction of idealism, and there have been prophets of a more sanguine temperament who have proclaimed that the war has made for the spiritual regeneration of mankind.

We have read these opinions and pondered upon them, without any very great temptation to be pontifical upon the subject ourselves.

Within the last few weeks we have had a chance to study an extraordinary amount of first-hand evidence as to the effect of the war, for in The Outlook's War Prize Contest more than half a thousand readers have made The Outlook their confessor for the revelation of their intimate personal reactions to the great conflict. To judge by these letters, many of which we shall, in this and subsequent issues, share with our readers, it seems obvious that each man and woman took out of the war what he or she put into it. Those who gave themselves whole-heartedly, whether in Red Cross work at home or in bitter combat in France, received in return a broader understanding of human nature, a greater depth of character, and that strength to face danger and disaster which is much more than callousness or indifference.

F

ACCURACY

EW greater compliments come to an editor's desk than those which call him to account for some inaccuracy. When an ecclesiastic makes a mistake, he can usually escape censure by pointing out that that mistake occurred in a field in which he is not regarded as infallible. When a physician makes a mistake, it is not counted seriously against him unless there can be traced to it consequences of physical pain or death. When a lawyer makes a mistake, it may even be accounted to him for righteousness on appeal, and, if not, it is forgotten provided he wins his

easily. He is expected to know everything, observe everything, foresee everything, in all fields of knowledge. And he not only must not make any mistakes himself but he must not allow anybody else whose writings he permits to appear in print to deviate from the straight line of perfect accuracy. The evidence of this accumulates from day to day in the letters which are laid upon the editorial desk.

We therefore say that letters of protest against inaccuracies are among the greatest compliments that an editor receives. They indicate the high standards to which he is held and they prove that readers expect of editors more than they expect of any other men.

For example, we have received a letter from A. I. Loop, of North East, Pennsylvania:

Referring to lower corner page 685: If this sketch is correct, Colon and Panama City have been moved across the Canal since 1915.

We refer to the sketch in question. It is as follows:

It is evident that the author's typewriter when it made the periods which indicate the location of these two cities on his sketch map failed to skip a space. We have also been called to account by Mr. Glen Buck, of Chicago. He notices with exasperation that Miss Edith Lacy, in her account of a visit to John Bur

roughs seven years ago, reported a late neighbor of his as calling Mr. Burroughs "Johnny;" said that she went across a swamp from stump to stump and from the last stump regarded the back of Woodchuck Lodge; and described the lodge as a low cabin of slender boles (though she did, we note, add "one could not say 'logs' to them"). Mr. Buck says that no one who ever knew "Oom John," particularly the people of Roxbury, could have called him "Johnny;" that, as Woodchuck Lodge stands against the side of the mountain facing the village, no one could approach it from the rear; and that, as Woodchuck Lodge is an old farmhouse substantially clapboarded, it is not built of logs or boles; and he says that these "glaring inaccuracies" are an indication of the "new slipshod tendency in magazine editing generally." We referred the matter to Miss Lacy herself. We hope we will not be accused of attempting to "pass the Buck;" because we think it only Miss Lacy's due. In reply we have received this very nice letter:

Thank you for your letter of April 21. I have delayed answering in the hope of seeing a picture of Woodchuck Lodge, but so far have not been able to find one. My landlady in Roxbury spoke of and to John Burroughs as "Johnny"-quite naturally, I thought, since she told me they were school-fellows. As to the approach to Woodchuck Lodge, I but recorded the way I took to it-over a swamp and fields in the rear to the highroad. My impressions of Woodchuck Lodge are of a low, rough, cabin-like building, very rustic, and with slender boles in its makeup. But, as I only saw it once, nearly seven years ago, and for a few moments, and as my interest during that brief visit was centered, of course, on John Burroughs's personality, it may well be that surrounding details were not photographically impressed on my memory.

The real regret is that the slight sketch, meant only to portray a delightful glimpse of John Burroughs, should so unhappily have stirred any of his friends to protest over a detail that, to them, would appear real carelessness. That I would not knowingly have done.

To Mr. Loop and to Mr. Buck we wish to extend our acknowledgment and thanks. We have not only derived profit from the corrections, but a sense of gratification that we were supposed to know so much and observe so meticulously.