Слике страница
PDF
ePub

not but mean for the Negro an equal share with other citizens in the blessings and privileges that it offers.

The Negro, however, will only share in proportion to the measure of his merit. He must be prepared to use, in its most useful sense, the privileges which democracy will offer.

This will mean more conscience, more regularity, more system, more reliability, more intelligence, in the work which Negroes have to perform.

It will mean better homes, with more attractive surroundings, greater inducement for boys to remain on the farms, better schools, better churches, better teachers, and more earnest religious leadership.

It means that if the Negro hopes to share, as undoubtedly he must, in the blessings of democracy, he must measure up in these simple, every-day activities. The Negro must exhibit the very highest citizenship, including intelligent, self-respecting, clean, moral manhood and womanhood.

The conference at which Dr. Moton spoke was attended by

many white leaders of education from the South who cordially joined in the discussion of the significant National problems which the present war has brought home to all Americansthe problems of developing interest in thrift, patriotism, cooperation, food conservation, and education, as agencies through which we may hope to secure National prosperity and help to win the world war for democracy.

THE SANCTUARIES OF PALESTINE

Not in the guise of conquerors did the victorious British General Allenby with his staff and foreign attachés enter Jerusalem. They entered almost in the guise of pilgrims. They would not use the new road cut through the walls in 1898 near the Jaffa gate so that the German Emperor might ride in where none had ever ridden before. Instead all dismounted outside the gate and entered through the ancient doorway humbly and on foot.

So writes Monsignor Barnes, an English Roman Catholic ecclesiastic, in the New York "Sun," and adds some comment concerning the various sanctuaries in Palestine. General Allenby's proclamation to the inhabitants of Jerusalem read:

[ocr errors]

Since your city is regarded with affection by the adherents of three of the greatest religions of mankind, and its soil has been consecrated by the prayers and pilgrimages of multitudes of devout people of these three religions for many centuries, therefore do I make known to you that every sacred building, monument, holy spot, shrine, traditional site, endowment, pious bequest, or customary place of prayer of whatsoever form belonging to the great religions of mankind will be maintained and protected according to the existing customs and beliefs of those to whose faiths they are sacred.

In pursuance of these promises measures were taken to make sure that no damage should be done to any sanctuary by the adherents of a hostile faith. This but follows the example of the Saracen conqueror Omar, who (A.D. 636) gave the Christians fair and honorable terms. For over four centuries, or until the Turkish conquest, there was no persecution. So now the Mosque of Omar, standing on the site of Solomon's Temple, is of moment to Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans; indeed, the Mohammedans deem it the second holiest place on earth. In the future, as Monsignor Barnes says, something will have to be done to secure to Jews and Christians, who also clearly have religious interests in this spot, at least the right of free access; but for the moment the necessary thing was to reassure the Mohammedan world that a Christian triumph does not mean any insult to their faith, and so Mohammedan guards, drawn from the officers and men of the Indian army, were set over this place, as over the tomb of Abraham at Hebron, Abraham being a revered patriarch and prophet also among Mohammedans,

As to the suggestion that Palestine be made into a small Jewish state, under international guaranty, there need be no fear, Monsignor Barnes believes, that Jews will ever be allowed to dominate Christian or Mohammedan sanctuaries, "nor is there any reason to think they would wish to do so."

The most prominent Christian sanctuaries are the Basilica of the Nativity at Bethlehem and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem. Every visitor to Jerusalem, writes Monsignor Barnes, will remember the Moslem guard set over the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, whose presence seemed the

very embodiment of the shamefulness of the Christian position. He continues:

It was a hereditary office that went back for centuries. To retain such an office would be intolerable under present conditions. On the other hand, to abolish it might give the idea that it was the beginning of the end of all Moslem institutions. General Allenby, with the greatest tact and a finesse that was almost French, solved the difficulty in this way. He asked the guardian to retain his position and its emoluments, but no longer as the symbol of an alien supremacy, or with any actual authority, but in memory of the magnanimity of Omar, and for a perpetual remembrance of the way in which long ago, before the evil days of Turkish dominion, the authorities of Islam used their power not to destroy but to protect the Christian institutions.

Thus from every point of view the British conquest of Palestine is an event not only of surpassing romantic interest, but of epoch-making political and religious importance. As to religion it may mark the beginning of a new age of tolerance.

DOLLS AND MODELS

Art, New York City, and at the Toledo Museum of Art call The collections of dolls at the Metropolitan Museum of attention to the value of models in general, whether for entertainment or for instruction.

The collection at the Metropolitan consists of some thirty costume dolls and is of note as illustrative of the history of costume throughout the ages. The collection at Toledo is still more noticeable. It contains eighty dolls, each about two feet high, representing not only the evolution of costume but many historical characters as well. The likenesses have been depicted with great care from portraits in the Louvre and Luxembourg Galleries. Even the jeweled ornaments have been reproduced in minutest detail. Among the notables represented are Philip III, Francis I, Mary Stuart, Catherine de Medicis, Marie Antoinette, Madame de Maintenon, Empress Eugénie, and others. Of course the dolls in these two collections furnish a fund of subjects for use in "story hours," which, we are glad to say, are now in vogue in many museums for child visitors.

In addition, and of greater significance as far as instruction is concerned, there are the models of men and buildings shown at various museums. At the Metropolitan, for instance, there are the miniature models of the Church of Santa Sophia at Constantinople and of the Penshurst Castle hall in England. As material illustrative of scientific facts we find remarkable miniature groups at the Children's Museum, Brooklyn (in Bedford Park, Brooklyn Avenue, between Prospect Place and Park Place, free to the public every day, including Sundays; the Metropolitan Museum is free five days a week).

The models suggest the climate, physical character, natural resources, flora and fauna, and the characteristics of the people of each country so described. There are, for instance, at Brooklyn, models representing Eskimos harpooning the walrus on the Greenland coast and the natives of the South Sea Islands drawing on to the beach their outrigger dugouts. Thus the models bring out the relation between the human element and its geographical surroundings. Similar models are also at the Newark Museum and at the University of Illinois. All of them were executed by Mr. Dwight Franklin, formerly of the American Museum of Natural History, New York City. He is a distinguished pioneer in a new and practically unlimited field.

HOPE FOR NEW JERSEY

New Jersey has long been reproached with the fact that with but one single exception (Nebraska), she is the only State in the Union to have no local option law whatever. Lately, however, and as one result of last fall's elections, the Legislature has shown a disposition to meet the public demand for such a law. The Senate lately passed a local option measure by a vote of 16 to 5. On January 29 the lower house concurred, and thus a long-standing reproach is removed.

Another backward aspect of New Jersey law has been as regards the treatment and reformation of criminals. Not all its institutions have been bad. Thus the Rahway Reformatory is a notable example of wise management, as was seen when the warden, Dr. Frank Moore, allowed a large number of boys to

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][graphic][graphic][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

go home for the holidays unguarded, as a reward for their good work and interest in road building, and all returned promptly to the Reformatory on the given day.

But there must be something wrong about the New Jersey law as to reforming boys when Judge E. F. Waite, of the Minneapolis District Court, writes to the "Survey" as follows:

When I read in The Outlook of December 19 of a boy who had been sent to a juvenile correctional institution in New Jersey and kept there twenty-two months for (according to the official statement of his offense) "breaking and entering a tailor's shop to find a place to sleep, his father having turned him out of doors," I could hardly believe my eyes. But the headnote of the article vouched for the experience and reliability of the author, Arthur D. Chandler. Then, on the 26th, came another article by Mr. Chandler, telling, as though it were not an exceptional incident, of a fourteen-year-old boy who had "served time" for several years in the same institution, being sent there by a juvenile court "because he was a dependent boy."..

Is there some mistake, or are children really treated like this by the courts of New Jersey?. . .

The charges made against the treatment of prisoners at the New Jersey State Prison at Trenton and the agitation over the subject, largely due to the New York "Evening Post," led to the appointment by Governor Edge of a Prison Inquiry Commission. Their report does much more than to state the evidence taken. Under the able direction of Mr. Dwight W. Morrow as Chairman, with the full and wise co-operation of Governor Edge, and with the warm approval of so distinguished a penologist as Dr. George W. Kirchwey, the Commission has made a large and broad-minded review of the State's history as to correction, has taken up such questions as that of prison labor and modern reformatory theories, and, in short, has produced an extremely valuable work which we commend to the attention of officers of penal institutions and students of sociological questions.

By a happy coincidence this report appears just at the time when it is announced that prison contract labor has been finally and completely done away with in New Jersey, as Mr. Morrow's Commission urgently recommended. This was done largely through the efforts of Governor Edge. There has been a struggle for thirty years to make the practice conform to the law, but twice one Legislature undid the work of another, not by repealing a law, but by enacting new provisions that practically nullified it. Now the practice is a thing of the past, and a long step has been taken in penal reform in New Jersey.

THE SERVICE FLAG AGAIN

A brief history of the Service Flag published in The Outlook of December 26, 1917, has brought us many letters heartily commending The Outlook's statement that the ownership of the Service Flag should not be left in private hands.

One of the heartiest letters of approval which we have received comes from Mr. George Winant Parks, of Providence, Rhode Island. Mr. Parks says in his letter:

[ocr errors]

As a reader of The Outlook I wish to subscribe to the stand you have taken regarding the ownership of the Service Flag. While we all appreciate the thought and timely suggestion of Mr. Queisser, who designed and first used the Service Flag, the consensus of opinion of the American people would undoubtedly be against its being owned and controlled by any one individual, and especially opposed to its being a source of money-making to such a one. As an emblem it stands second in patriotism to the Stars and Stripes, and should belong, as the flag does, to the people. In so far as I know, The Outlook is the only publication that has taken such a stand, which is not a surprise to its readers, who have long since realized that the paper always aims to stand for right and justice and true patriotism. Since Mr. Queisser is going to divide the income with the American Red Cross, possibly he would be willing to sell his rights and patent to that organization for an amount to cover his cost, etc., which he says is about $2,000.

Mr. Parks further suggests that a fund be raised by public subscriptions of one dollar each on behalf of the Red Cross to reimburse Mr. Queisser for his expenditures in promoting the use of his Service Flag, and that the patent monopoly, which he at present holds, be given to the Red Cross.

Purchased in such a way, the patent on the Service Flag could

then be given to the public outright or used as a means for raising further funds for the Red Cross. Certainly this sugges tion appears to offer one excellent way to remove the present stigma from the Service Flag.

We wish that Mr. Queisser might see fit to accept this sugges tion in the spirit in which it was offered. But with the testimony before us we doubt whether he will. In a letter recently received from Mr. Queisser he states that he would be willing to sell his patent to the Government "at a price, however, for which it is worth." Mr. Queisser deplores the continued discussion of the ownership of the Service Flag in the following words:

Just now it seems to be working out fine and there is practically no comment because most of the manufacturers are working under license and there is no reason for them to stir it up. The amount of the license fee is so small that individually it practically affects no one who buys a single flag, and I believe the fact is if the fee were reduced by the Government, if they purchased the patent, that it would absolutely bring about no reduction whatever in the sale price of the flags, and the license fee, fifty per cent of which goes to the Red Cross, would be lost, and no one but the manufacturer be the gainer.

On the other hand, if the Nation continues to permit the symbol of its patriotism to be exploited for private profit, the country as a whole will be the loser in self-respect. Which alternative is preferable?

THE PRESIDENT, THE CONGRESS, AND THE COUNTRY

T

THE country owes a great debt of gratitude to Senator Chamberlain. If any member of the Administration is inclined to resent his criticism, we recommend to him the saying of Ralph Waldo Emerson : saying of Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Men of character like to hear of their faults." Happily, democracy has always developed some brave man to meet such a crisis as the present, and such courage never fails to win a response from the American people. Senator Chamberlain's speech on the floor of the Senate furnished conclusive evidence that his original address to the National Se curity League was no "distortion of the truth," and the President must by this time be satisfied that the public do not find that it is "impossible to attach any importance to his statement.

"

There is a fundamental fact which the country will not and the President and Congress ought not to ignore: the War De partment, which has discharged but indifferently well the duties required by an army of 125,000 in time of peace, has broken down in attempting to perform those duties for an army of a million and a half during the greatest war the world has ever seen. It was like an attempt to run a British war tank with a motor built for a Ford runabout. The work of reorganization should have been undertaken at least two years ago. If nothing was then done, at least plans should have been then made. And if the Administration, allowing its wishes to be father to its thoughts, hoped that war might be avoided, certainly on the day on which the Administration became convinced against its will that war was possible, anticipatory preparation for a possible war should have been begun.

It is useless now to inquire who is responsible for the failure. The present problem is how to correct the evil which has shaken the confidence of a too trusting people in their military organization. What those evils have been are, in part at least, clear even to inexpert civilians. There has been a lack of co-ordination, a lack of power, and a lack of frankness. No reorganization will be effectual which does not cure these evils.

It was inexcusable to call men into camp when there was no camp ready to receive them, when there was no adequate supply of overcoats with which to clothe them, of arms with which to drill them, of hospitals, doctors, and nurses to care for them when sick. It is easy to see now-it does not seem that it should have been difficult to see then-that the various bureau heads should, on the day war was declared, if not before, have been gathered about the table and kept there until they had determined how rapidly men could be housed, clad, and cared for, and how rapidly, therefore, they should be called to the colors. If overcoats of the traditional weave could not be pro cured in sufficient number, if shoes of the traditional type could not be made within the limited time, tradition should have

stepped aside to make room for necessity. When a house is on fire, we do not wait until we can make a patent sprinkler; we do what we can with pails of water until the fire-engine comes, and then we do not scorn its aid because it is of old construction. If we could not get the ideal rifles and machine guns to train the men, we should have taken what rifles and machine guns we could get. Some people have suggested that drill in arms with broomsticks is possible. Such people may know drills, but they do not know human nature. The boys in camp are not kindergarten children, to be satisfied with paper caps and wooden guns.

Where there was knowledge there was not power. SurgeonGeneral Gorgas is perhaps the greatest expert on camp sanitary conditions in the world. He has told us that he urgently requested the Department that men should not be called into the camps until hospitals were provided. This request was disregarded, with what tragical results in more than one instance the country now knows. Surgeon-General Gorgas should have had power to command; or, if that were impracticable, his request should have had the effect of a command. If his superior officer cannot trust the head of the Medical Department with authority in his own medical domain, he should not trust him at all, and should put another in his place whom he can

trust.

Mr. Hoover has taken the country into his confidence. He has told us what he wants us to plant in our gardens, what to eat in our homes and hotels, and what to forego and why; and the people have responded with general and generous selfsacrifice. Mr. McAdoo has told us what money he wants and what is to be done with it, and the people have given him more than he asked for.

[ocr errors]

The War Department has pursued a different policy. It has concealed not only from the people, but apparently from the President, the disastrous conditions of some of our camps, else the President could not have referred to them as mere "partial miscarriages of plans," and condemned the persistent investigation by Congress on the ground that such investigations "drew indispensable officials from their commands and contributed a great deal to such delay and confusion as has inevitably arisen.' What the country demands and has a right to demand is such reorganization of the War Department in method and in personnel as may be necessary to secure, and secure at once, eo-ordination of all its various bureaus, power in the appropriate heads to act, not merely to advise, and frank and openhanded dealing with the people whose war this is and who are giving their money, their time, and their sons and their daughters to winning it and winning it now.

The confidence of the people in their Government has for some time been disturbed by unverified rumors of inefficiency in the administration of the War Department. It was rudely shaken by the recent coal order of Mr. Garfield. It has been irreparably impaired by the speech of Senator Chamberlain, and by the testimony of Surgeon-General Gorgas, Mr. Medill McCormick, and Secretary Baker himself. It has not been re-established by the President's indorsement of his Secretary as "one of the ablest public officials I have ever known." We do not think it will be e-establhed by the address of Mr. Baker, admirable as it is in many respects, which was made before the Senate Committee on January 28. It is not necessary to consider whether Mr. Baker is at fault. It is enough to say that to succeed in his work the Secretary of War must have the confidence of the country, and the country no longer has complete confidence in his ability to reorganize the Department. The President might well take a lesson from the life of Abraham Lincoln, whom he 30 greatly admires, who, when his Secretary of War, Mr. Cameron, lost the confidence of the country, appointed him Minister to Russia, and put in his place Edwin M. Stanton, a personal and political foe.

Meanwhile Congress has a duty to perform and is performing it. In an autocratic government the Kaiser or Czar rules, the heads of departments are his servants, and the Reichstag or the Duma is simply a popularly elected body of advisers, whose advice the Kaiser or Czar may accept or disregard as he pleases. In a democracy a Parliament or Congress, chosen by the people and speaking for them, directs what must be done, and a President or Prime Minister puts their will into effect. In an autoc

racy the executive rules, the people and their representatives obey; in a democracy the people rule and the executive obeys. The most fundamental question involved in this war is whether the Executive shall be the ruler, as in Germany, or the servant of the people, as in England, France, Italy, and the United States. Congress created the War Department, and if the War Department does not function to the satisfaction of Congress, it is the duty of Congress to reorganize it.

It can do this by creating a War Cabinet. A correspondent on another page gives weighty reasons for this course. But what is perhaps the most serious objection to that course he does not consider time. So radical a measure cannot be passed by Congress without a perplexing debate. It is disapproved by the President, and that disapproval can be overcome only by an insistent public opinion. A War Cabinet would be a novelty in American history. To create an insistent public opinion demanding it would require a still more protracted debate. Meanwhile our allies are calling for our action, and every day of delay costs the lives of hundreds of soldiers in the field and imperils the ultimate victory. But Congress can, without serious delay, create a Minister of Munitions. If it gives him power to act, not merely to advise, and if it can secure from the President the appointment to the office of one who enjoys the confidence both of Congress and the President, the most immediate and pressing evil-lack of co-ordination and of personal power in procuring equipment for our soldiers-would be at once remedied. Congress can then take up at greater leisure additional reorganization of the departments of the Government needed to insure protection from future National disasters, such as our tangled transportation, our lack of shipping, and our lack of coal. The President can perhaps provide any immediate and temporary remedy by a change of personnel, but only Congress can provide a real and radical remedy like enacting changes in organization. And in such action speed is of greater importance than a perfect plan.

The President is elected to carry out the will of Congress. Congress is elected to carry out the will of the people. And there can be no doubt what is the will of the people. It is Grant's direction to Sheridan: "Push things." If Congress fails to push things, the remedy is with the people in the election next fall. In that election every voter who wishes to win the war, and to win it now, should vote for the Representative who most eagerly and insistently shares that will, whether he be Republican or Democrat or Socialist or Laborite or Capitalist or Prohibitionist or Woman Suffragist. For to win this war and win it now, and, in winning the right of democracy to exist, win a lasting world peace, is the supreme duty of this Nation-President, Congress, and people.

THE WAR DEPARTMENT

A certain amount of "muddling through" seems to be inevitable in our War Department. Perhaps this is necessary in a democracy, where the spirit, the initiative, and the choice of executives must come from the people. A correspondent, whose name as a student of American history carries authority, deprecates the present criticism in Congress and the newspapers for these reasons:

Our Army is a sort of National fetish. When war comes, its officers fail in all they are expected to do because they have vegetated through past years of numbing routine. Newspapers and public men make the task more difficult by attacking the civilians who are struggling with failures from which the country has suffered at the beginning of every war.

Our Ordnance Department decided in favor of keeping some regiments in flintlocks in the Mexican War, forty years after the percussion lock had been invented; they decided against the breech-loader at the opening of the Civil War; against smokeless powder in the Spanish War; and they have made similar blunders at the opening of this war.

These interesting facts, it seems to us, should not suppress but stimulate the spirit of criticism-not captious fault-finding, but a critical point of inquiry. If we have ordnance officers who, because they have "vegetated through past years of numb ing routine," are repeating the flintlock blunders of the Mexi can War, we ought to prod our civilian executives to remove

them, not to defend them. It is because the people want and have a right to know whether the War Department is making blunders similar to those of the Mexican, Civil, and Spanish Wars that the turmoil is going on in Washington. And it is in that spirit of constructive inquiry that The Outlook is glad to contribute its share to the questioning.

We commend to the special attention of our readers this week, as bearing upon this work of critical inquiry, Dr. Odell's article on the Lewis Machine Gun; the review of Secretary Baker's testimony before the Senate Committee; and the article advocating a War Cabinet by "An American Journalist." In another column we discuss the principles and authority which should govern congressional or parliamentary criticism and administrative reform in a democracy.

THE HIGH COST OF EDITING

Having endured coalless, meatless, sweetless, and wheatless days on account of the war, New York City has been threatened with another terrible privation, namely, a newspaperless day. We do not use these words altogether jocosely, for the daily newspaper has come to be almost as essential a factor in our economic and social life as transportation. Newspapers, indeed, constitute a transportation system of intelligence or ideas, and American business is now based on ideas and news almost as much as it is upon material commodities.

9966

What threatened to be a real catastrophe in the field of New York daily journalism happened in this wise. By concerted action all the New York dailies published in the English language agreed week before last to make a uniform price of two cents a copy. The "Times," "Sun,' Sun," "Tribune," "Herald," "World," and " American "have for a long time been selling a one-cent copy in the morning, while in the afternoon the "Evening Sun,' Mail," "Globe," "Evening World," and "Evening Journal" have been selling at the same price. The New York "Evening Post" was the only New York newspaper in English to command a higher rate. Its price has been three cents a copy. It has, of course, been known to the journalistic trade for many years that one cent a copy did not pay even for the mechanical expenses of getting out a metropolitan newspaper; that is to say, the white paper and presswork alone cost more than one cent. The advertising income supplied the necessary fund for salaries, wages, articles, and the vast sums spent for telegraphic news. Profits, if any, came from whatever was left. Not very long ago Mr. Ochs, the brilliant proprietor and publisher of the New York Times," stated in his own columns that the "Times" had to take in and expend over seventy-five thousand dollars a week, or nearly four million dollars a year, for the expenses of conducting the paper before one penny could go to the stockholders in the form of dividends.

66

The rapidly mounting price of white paper, of printing, of wages to compositors and pressmen, and of the expense of col

A FARMER

E farmers look with dread on the lessened power of the farms and danger to the world from smaller yields this year. Every grower is studying and planning for possibilities, but it is hopeless to expect more than a large fraction of the amount last year.

Aged farmers never toiled so hard, but many have become incapacitated or have died, and there have been 200,000 farm boys taken for the army. "Class A" is full of them for future drawing, and before spring work begins very many will be called.

They were the flower among producers-the sound, willing, progressive fellows, working toward successful manhood, waiting for a start before marrying (which puts them in " Class A "), and they must go, leaving the objectionable fellows to “support" somebody.

These absentees, with strong muscles and willing minds, we depended on to start things in the morning, to marshal schoolboys and lead hands at work, and their leaving takes fully twenty per cent of the productive power from the farms.

lecting news from all parts of the world under war conditions, have made it impossible for the daily newspapers to continue to sell their copies at one cent. The discrepancy between circulation receipts and editorial and publishing expenditures, which had to be made up by the advertising income, had become too great to be borne. This has led to the general agreement by which all the papers, including Mr. Villard's exclusive "Eve ning Post" and Mr. Hearst's heterogeneous and inclusive "Evening Journal," are to be sold hereafter at two cents each. About a year ago, under these same general conditions, The Outlook found it necessary to raise its price thirty-three and a third per cent. How severe the stress of war is on the general periodical and newspaper world is indicated by the fact that the New York dailies have increased their price one hundred per cent.

The most curious and most unlooked-for result of the increase in price is a strike on the part of the newsdealers who handle the daily papers. Formerly the newsboys and small dealers made forty cents on every hundred copies they sold of a one-cent paper. Under the new arrangement, if they sell the same number of papers they will earn sixty cents a hundred copies. Some of the advantage of the increased price is therefore passed along to them, and it was naturally to be supposed that they would welcome the increase. But they so disapproved of the change in price that they organized at once a strike and refused to sell any newspapers at all. And at this writing The Outlook office, which is supplied with files of every English daily in New York City-and dailies from many other cities of the country as well-has had great difficulty in getting its usual complement of New York morning papers. The reason given by the small newsdealers for their antagonism to the increased price is, first, that it requires a greater capital investment on their part. They formerly bought a hundred copies of a one-cent daily for sixty cents. They now have to pay $1.40 for a hundred copies. This makes, of course, the amount they risk in the transaction much larger. Second, they assert that they will sell fewer copies, and therefore make really less money than they did under the old system.

Undoubtedly the difficulties will be adjusted, and people will become accustomed to paying twice as much for their daily news paper, just as they have become accustomed to paying twice as much for their daily quart of milk. At least this is probably true as regards the better class of newspapers. It will be an interesting sociological study to see whether Mr. Hearst's "Eve ning Journal," which publishes nobody knows exactly how many editions during the day, and which appears to be bought lavishly and is littered about the streets, trolley cars, and subways equally lavishly, will continue to appeal to the same thoughtless newspaper buyers as strongly at two cents as it did at one cent. Whatever changes it may produce in newspaper circulation, the increase of price is a sound economic change, and may have a good effect on the quality and character of the newspapers as well as upon their bank accounts.

ON FOOD.

We must win this war, and want it over as soon as possible. The men on the farms will do all they can, and this copy of The Outlook goes to tens of thousands who own farms, many as investments. There should be producers on them, geared to the highest motion.

Other tens of thousands of readers who live in towns and cities know how to farm, and they should give production all the aid and comfort that is possible. There are college and school boys who should get out in the country and also help push this important matter of production.

Too many are ignorant of the danger, but the farmers know it. Crops will not grow and be gathered unless there are workers, and when ours are taken away we need no alarm bell. We farmers have no fear for ourselves, but can see privation for consumers and danger for the world. The preservation of the country depends on munitions and food.

[blocks in formation]
« ПретходнаНастави »