plan, test, and begin manufacturing the perfect machine gun; but in the meantime adopt and manufacture and use the best available machine gun in existence. And this is exactly what our Government ought to do with regard to the airplane.

If the Liberty motor is discovered by the hard test of warfare to be better than the available motors of established reputation, then it should be built exclusively. But the Liberty motor has never been tested by hard usage in warfare; and there are motors that have been so tested. Are we using, or planning to use, such motors in the meantime? The Hispano-Suize is reputed to be the best airplane motor that France has evolved. The Rolls-Royce airplane engine is regarded by many aviators as the best in the world. Both have been tested by the relentless conditions of warfare. Are we going to ignore airplane motors such as these, wait until our Liberty motor is tested in warfare, discover that it needs certain improvements which it will require time to install, and then wait again? It seems inconceivable that our War Department has any such idea as that; and yet this seems to have been the idea as to ordnance.

And what is true of airplane motors is true of other phases of our airplane situation. There is, for example, the question of airplane guns. The world is moving quickly these days in this new science of the fourth arm in warfare. New guns and new ways of mounting and firing them are the product of the experiences of airmen along the front. Is America taking her part in this advancement of aviation?

Another phase of aviation is the protection provided for the aviator. Armored airplanes that protect the pilot from machinegun fire at only a hundred feet elevation have been used, we are informed, by German fliers. Parachutes are now installed in some airplanes, and new devices for lessening the danger of fire. Is America waiting to get some American device in each of these respects, or is America profiting by European experience and ordering the manufacture of the newest gun, the newest armor, the newest safety devices, wherever they may be found? In asking these questions we are not seeking to cast any aspersion upon any man or group of men. Some of the men who have been and still are active in the Government's work of aircraft production have been among the most far-seeing of Americans. Great credit is due, undoubtedly, to the Aircraft Production Board. But hard work, the best of intentions, and the most discerning foresight cannot alone win the war. There must be what in business parlance is called "the goods." Is the country getting "the goods"? If so, the fact is being kept very secret.

If we are really doing what we have promised ourselves and our allies and threatened Germany that we should do, the information is of the sort that might well be made public. It is true, information concerning the details of military preparation of which the enemy could take advantage ought to be kept secret. But good news for our side can do our enemy only harm. If it is bad news, the evil will not be likely to be corrected unless the public learns it. The ordnance situation is a case in point.

What is the duty of the American public, whose fighting sons, brothers, and husbands are awaiting the weapons with which to win our victory? The unpardonable sin is indolence and lassitude, or the paralysis of official red tape hidden under the plea of military secrecy; and it is the sin of the public if it permits inaction. In the light of the rifle and machine-gun revelations, it seems necessary that the public should demand the truth concerning our airplane situation.

IN DEFENSE OF AMATEUR UNCLES We are wondering whether aunts have not had a larger place than they have deserved in the annals of vicarious parenthood. There are aunts and aunts, of course, and doubtless the majority of them deserve all the praises and the privileges which they have received; but we see no reason why aunts, as a class, should be allowed completely to monopolize, to the exclusion of their masculine colleagues, the choicest rights in the land of near-parenthood.

Even literature has not been particularly kind to uncles, though it is true that all writers have not assumed the attitude (to borrow a phrase from Shakespeare) of "Uncle me no uncle."

There have, indeed, been numerous uncles both in prose and fiction (not to say in black and white), but somehow, as the vague procession of their forms passes through the mind's eye, it seems as though the title before their names had served rather to detach than to connect them with those to whom they owed the right to use the plumèd designation "Uncle."

It is entirely probable that such a sweeping judgment as this is based more on mood than on fact, but the possibility of its being at least a defensible judgment is increased when we reflect upon the status of uncles in real-not reel-life.

The general application of the title in question to those solitary males who have no blood nieces and nephews of their own, but who move through their solitary orbits, tangent only at widely scattered intervals with those well-ordered households where children dwell, might incline one at first thought to the belief that uncles were classed as the equals in privilege of the whole tribe of aunts. But is this belief justified?

Does there not exist a nice distinction between the use of the titles "aunt" and "uncle" in this honorific sense, which often escapes those married folk who are wont to endow their children with a host of relatives honoris causa? If parents were frank with themselves in the explanation of their use of the words "uncle" and "aunt," would they not define these words somewhat as follows:

Aunt: A predestined mother who, lacking offspring of her own, is entitled to share, on occasion, in the affection which is the peculiar prerogative of those who wear the purple mantle of motherhood.

Uncle: An unattached man whose awkward efforts to appear in sympathy with the aims and aspirations of childhood should be received with becoming tolerance; a visitor from Mars within the four walls of the nursery who is expected and permitted to feel only such detached interest as might be the portion of a scientific observer from a remote world and a foreign civilization.

So marked in some households is the distinction drawn between the respective rights of aunts and uncles that an impartial observer can easily note in the victims of this unfair discrimination an immediately responsive concealment of their real and natural emotions-a concealment which at least injures their reputation for intelligence even if it does not go deep enough to raise hob with their spiritual development.

Rising to the demands of the situation in which they find themselves, they frequently manifest a superficial indifference to the wiles (and wails) of childhood, which is nothing more than sheer, downright, brazen bravado of the most shameless brand.

If you doubt this statement, watch the next youth confronted with the heir to some household on the momentous occasion when he (the youth, not the heir) is first greeted as an 66 Uncle." Does he blush? He does. Is it because he does not like it? It is not. He blushes because he knows that those responsible for bestowing upon him that proud appellation have done so, not out of respect for his personal and intimate ambitions, but because they are inclined to consider him as a variety of overgrown cub trying to make himself at home in a queer world of strange shapes and unfamiliar dreams.

Swimming placidly in the waters of their domestic lake, the fond-to use the word in both its Elizabethan and its Victorian senses and forgetful parents observe his struggles much as a pair of ducks secure in their own familiar knowledge of the water might observe and misinterpret the struggles and protests of a strange duckling proceeding through the high grasses along the shore under the unsympathetic chaperonage of some elderly hen. From the pond the squawking efforts of such a duckling to evade his escort might be ascribed to his innate aversion to water, when in reality they were caused by his frustrated desires to get into the element in which he naturally belonged.

Whether or not there is a moral of any particular value to be drawn from this somewhat rambling dissertation on the rights and emotions of amateur uncles is a matter to be gravely doubted. The premises on which it is based may not be wholly sound. Its conclusion, we admit, is at best vague and uncertain.

Perhaps the moral may be that uncles, as well as aunts, have a right to certain emotions even in the face of the indifference, if not the laughter, of a hard and cruel world.

The next time, O parents, you meet with an uncle of the

To fulfill this new duty requires an intelligent understanding of the respective political powers of these five communities. Roughly speaking, it may be said that

The education of the youth depends upon the school district authorities.

Local order, peace, and sanitation depend upon the town or city authorities.

The maintenance of good roads and bridges, the proper partition of taxes between the different towns, and much of the enforcement of criminal laws, depend upon the county authorities.

The school district, the town or city, and the county are all subject to the control of the State authorities, upon whom also depend many other questions, local or quasi-local in their character.

All those interests which concern the welfare of the entire Nation, such as foreign and inter-State transportation and commerce, the tariff, the currency, the National defense, the mails, the regulation of the railways and the telegraph, and all international relations, depend upon the National authorities.

To become acquainted with the various questions involved in the government of these several political organizations and the duties which that government imposes upon the citizens will require no inconsiderable amount both of information and of thoughtful and studious reflection. We urge you, therefore, in your respective communities to organize plans for acquiring this information, imparting it to others, and inspiring both in yourself and in others the study of these problems, that you may contribute to their wise solution.

You may ask if such study is not as necessary for the male as for the female voter. Yes. Nevertheless there is a difference. The boys who will vote in the next election have been for some years looking forward to this duty. They have talked politics

with their fathers and with their companions; they have learned-insensibly, it is true, but still really-something respecting these political problems and the duties which citizenship lays upon them. The naturalized citizens have been, in a different way, also considering the duties of political citizenship and making some preparation to fulfill those duties, partly by informal discussions with their comrades, partly through the political or industrial or social groups to which they belong.

These new voters will be added to the polling lists in their respective communities in scores, in hundreds, and in a few of the great cities in thousands. But it is estimated that in the State of New York over a million and three-quarters of women will be added to the polling lists. Some of you regard this as a privilege which you have been eager to obtain; some of you have regarded it as a duty from which you were glad to be exempt. But those of you who have been eager have generally been so busy in trying to get the vote that you have had no time to study carefully what that vote means or how it should be exercised; while those of you who have hoped still to be exempt from political duty have naturally not studied the subject at all. For the reasons which The Outlook has already stated we urge you, certainly in the States where woman's suffrage has been adopted, to accept the decision and prepare yourself to fulfill the duties which that decision lays upon you.

How shall this be done? There is no one way which is best in all communities or for all individuals. In some localities where there has been both a suffrage and an anti-suffrage organization, the two could profitably unite in making woman's suffrage of practical value to the community. In other localities where there is a woman's club, that club might profitably take up politics as a suitable topic for non-partisan study. In other localities the school district might be urged to organize a series of meetings, to be held in the school-house or the assembly hall of the high school, in which lectures should be given on the framework of our Government and on the duties and responsibilities which participation in that Government involves. Whether this systematic instruction is afforded by voluntary clubs or by the school district in its official capacity, there ought to be an opportunity for questioning by the auditors. The meeting should partake of the nature of a class and, in whatever way this instruction is afforded, it should be in gatherings to which all voters would be equally welcome. Those who attempt to initiate such a campaign of political instruction should not forget that the maid has just as much political power as the mistress; that the vote of one counts for just as much as the vote of the other; and that one no less than the other needs both political instruction and the inspiration to a practical working patriotism.

We should be glad to get brief accounts of any attempt to carry out these suggestions as to preparations for the new duties of the new day.

I

N reply to a request of The Outlook for a statement concerning the attitude of the trade unions toward the transfer of the railway systems of the United States from private to public operation, Mr. Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, has sent us the following message. Last week we printed statements of opinion of this revolutionary change from a representative Socialist organ, from railway operators, from newspapers and individuals who have the point of view of the capitalist, and from representative newspapers of the North, the South, and the West. No statement on behalf of organized labor was included because no such statement from an authorized source had been, so far as we were able to ascertain, issued at that time. In spite of prompt and courteous compliance with our request, Mr. Gompers's statement did not reach us until after The Outlook for last week had gone to press. It is so specific, however, and so authoritative and important, that we do not regret the circumstances which have led to its publication separately, and therefore more conspicuously. Mr. Gompers's statement follows.

"Answering your question as to what the attitude of organized labor would be upon the President's proclamation taking over the control of the railroads and other transportation agencies, I would say that, in my judgment, there will be wholehearted support of his position and his action.

"The separate ownership of the various railroads and their competitive existence has shown that they cannot afford the best adaptability to do the essential work of the Government during the tremendous needs in this war. I know that the representatives of the railroad companies did their level best to afford fullest possible service to meet the needs of the Government, but, due to the causes I have mentioned and because of their separate interests and the laws which hedge them about, they were not capable of giving that united and comprehensive support and service so essential now and which the President's order will accomplish. In addition to its effectiveness for military purposes it will be time-saving, give the opportunity for concentration of effort, and in the long run prove expedi SAMUEL GOMPERS."

tious and economical.

E

66

THE RUSSIAN BOLSHEVIKI Germany to evacuate all Russian territory; Poland, Lithuania, and the Lettish provinces to have autonomy; Armenia to be free; the Alsace-Lorraine question to be settled by plebiscite, with guarantees of liberty to vote freely; Belgium to be restored, damages to be paid from an international fund; the same for Serbia and Montenegro, but Serbia also to have access to the Adriatic; Bosnia and Herzegovina to be independent; Rumania to get its territory back, but to promise autonomy to the Dobrudja and to give Jews equal rights; Germany to get back her colonies; Persia and Greece to be restored; the Trentino and Trieste to have autonomy until their future is left to a plebiscite; the Suez and Panama Canals to be neutralized, as well as all maritime straits (such as the Dardanelles); freedom of the seas to be upheld and the torpedoing of merchant ships forbidden; no indemnities; contributions already exacted to be returned; no commercial boycott; gradual disarmament; no standing armies; no secret treaties; the delegates to the peace congress to be chosen by representative national bodies.

GERMANY

Germany's colonies to be restored to her; Russian territory to be evacuated except Poland, Lithuania, Courland, etc. -thus a plebiscite in these places would be positively under German control and influence; no discrimination after the war against ships or goods of nations now enemies; no payment for damages or repayment of requisitions; German merchant ships to be returned; Belgium to be evacuated, but no reparation from Germany; no yielding by Germany as to Alsace-Lorraine; all the Entente Allies to agree to Germany's terms before they are granted to Russia; the nationality of the countries now subject to larger nations to be decided by those nations--this is the only meaning possible in Count Czernin's complicated statement, and under it Bohemia and Armenia would remain subject to Austria and Turkey respectively; Germany to keep garrisons at Riga and Libau, and a few other Russian strongholds.

TURKEY

Free passage for Russian ships through the Dardanelles and Bosphorus; Russia to remove her armies within her own bounds at once, to demobilize her Black Sea navy and her Armenian forces; Turkey to retain her present army; frontier lines as before the war; individual war losses to be refunded; guarantees for Persian independence.

LLOYD GEORGE

"We

Belgium restored, with reparation so far as possible. mean to stand by the French democracy to the death in the demand they make for a reconsideration of the great wrong of '71" (i. e., the seizure of Alsace-Lorraine); the German-African colonies to be administered for the benefit of their peoples, not exploited for European capitalists or governments; "the destruction or disruption of Germany has never been a war aim with us. . . . Our wish . . . is to turn her aside from schemes of military domination to devote her strength to the beneficent tasks of the world ;" Austria-Hungary and Turkey not to be despoiled; Germany's political Constitution to be left to the German people, although a democratic Constitution is desirable; reference to the reply as to war aims made by Great Britain at President Wilson's request when Germany maintained complete silence as to her objects; Czernin's statement described as one under which "any scheme of conquest and annexations could be perpetrated;" "Democracy in this country will stand to the last by the democracy of France and Italy, . . . Russia can only be saved by her own people;" an independent Poland, in

cluding all genuinely Polish elements; justice for Rumania, and some way to remove the distrust felt toward Austria-Hungary among the peoples of the Near East; Armenia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine to be independent; the Dardanelles to be neutralized; Turkey to keep its capital; reparation for injuries in violation of international law; an international way of settling disputes after the war.

PRESIDENT WILSON

So far we have summarized the statements of the war aims of our allies. We now quote verbatim President Wilson's summary from his admirable address of January 8 before Congress:

"All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us.

The programme of the world's peace, therefore, is our programme, and that programme, the only possible programme, as we see it, is this:

I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind; but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest co-operation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded may Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.

XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated: