sideration in devising a formula of armament restriction. LLOYD GEORGE'S PERSONALITY It is to be expected that this topic of the agenda will bring the British delegates on tiptoe. Colonel E. M. House used to say during the Paris Peace Conference that if you wanted to give an Englishman a ship and opened the subject delicately he became excited when the word "ship was mentioned, evidently thinking you were actuated by selfish motives and wanted to take something away from him. Mr. Lloyd George was not different from the other British delegates in Paris in this regard. His strong personality as a negotiator is too well known to the world to need further explanation. Full of the fire of the Celt, quick and resourceful, ready to change his line of attack if he sees an impregnable barrier before him, adroit, eloquent, with a sense of humor that has relieved tense situations, he presents a picturesque figure whenever he pleads the cause of his Government. He eagerly welcomes the opinions of his associates, and, while always a leader, is prepared to follow where popular sentiment points the way. It In the British delegation will be found representatives of the empire's overseas dominions, and they are certain to play an important part. The invitation to a conference on Pacific and Far Eastern questions came at an opportune time for Britain. came at a moment when the statesmen of the Imperial Government and the dominions were engaged at London in the endeavor to harmonize sentiments in regard to renewing the expiring Anglo-Japanese alliance. That this agreement was inimical to America was believed by a large number of the British people, and the opposition which this condition produced was accentuated by the unwillingness of some of the dominion statesmen to maintain further close partnership with Japan. The AngloJapanese alliance continued, but it was not formally renewed. Out of the discussion in the imperial conference came a suggestion to the United States of a conference, either in England or America, preliminary to the conference which President Harding had proposed, the object being to effect" some larger understanding "as a substitute for the Anglo-Japanese alliance. This suggestion was not accepted, for reasons which the United States believed to be imperative, but the sentiment developed in the imperial conference has indicated the important part the British dominions will play in the Washington gathering. The picturesque W. M. Hughes, Prime Minister of the Australian Commonwealth, who crossed swords with Woodrow Wilson at Paris, is sending as his substitute at Washington a man of quiet demeanor with none of the surface qualities which we associate with political leadership. George Foster Pearce, Minister of Defense and Senator for Western Australia, has the appearance of a scholar and the methods of a business man. He has the reputation of being a deep thinker whose judgment is good. Mr. Pearce is no orator. He is not ready in the give-and-take of parliamentary debate. But he is accounted a shrewd politician, with a thorough understanding of Australia's problems and an ability to make them clear at the conference table. Two ORATORS FROM FRANCE France has great possessions in the. Far East, but, while she is not indifferent to the bearing the Washington conference may have upon them, her main interest lies in limitation of land armament. As at Paris in 1919, her question at Washington will be. What guarantees can you give us against German aggression if we are to reduce our armies? The FrancoAmerican treaty of defense has been ignored by the United States Senate. France and all Europe know that an alliance with this country is out of the question. It is significant, how ever, that hope is entertained that a formula will be adopted which, while embodying no offensive or defensive undertaking, will afford France the guarantee she demands and enable her to reduce the heavy burden she is carrying through the maintenance of a great standing military force. If that can be accomplished it will be a great triumph of statesmanship, and the character of men France sends to the conference will have an important bearing in connection with it. When Rene Viviani came to America with the picturesque Joffre as his associate to bring the greetings of France on America's entry into the World War, he delivered an address before the Senate of the United States of which men talk today in terms of wonderment. He spoke in French. It is doubtful if more than a handful of that considerable assemblage had any familiarity with his language. His remarks were punctuated by frequent general applause. It was not mere politeness which actuated his auditors, most of them knowing no language except their own, in showing their appreciation. Some of them have explained their attitude in the statement that the man's oratorical fervor was so vivid, his gestures so illuminating, his enunciation so clear, that perforce they caught his meaning even if they did not understand his words. Such a situation is difficult to comprehend. Yet there is the testimony of those who, confessing their ignorance of the world's polite language, insist with evident sincerity that sincerity that Viviani's utterances were clear to them. Senator Medill McCormick, whose French came to him in the days when his father was Ambassador in Paris found, when he offered to assist the official reporters in smoothing out the English translation furnished them, that the French words had burned so deeply into their minds that the translation merely confirmed their unconscious interpretation of what the statesman had said in his native tongue. 66 Aristide Briand is an orator, too, but of a different sort. Like Viviani, he is brilliant in expressing his thoughts, but he does not attempt to clothe them in those beautiful figures which mark Viviani's declamation. His method is more direct. His oratory is of the kind described as native." He speaks to the point, and so convincingly that his hearers are charmed by the very simplicity of his logic. Persuasive, he turns men from the inclinations of their minds. He carries forward conviction of his sincerity. It is a trait that has stood him in good stead in many an awkward political crisis. Briand is to remain only a short time in Washington, but long enough, it is supposed, to impress his personality on the conference. A man who has been seven times Premier of France must have qualities that command attention. His career is a succession of surprises, of being out and being in. Originally combative, aggressive and uncompromising, in later years he has become conciliatory, and so remarkable has been his metamorphosis that the Catholics, who hated him for his separation and congregation laws, and the methods he followed in carrying them out, have shown a disposition to meet him half way in his efforts to show moderation toward them. The enemies he made in his days of radical socialism were many, but it is now said that he is on good terms with all the political parties in France. Viviani, who will succeed Briand as head of the French delegation in Washington, is well known in America through his tour of the country with Joffre in 1917 and his visit to New York and Washington last Spring. Unlike Briand, he has not succeeded in overcoming the hostility of the Catholics on account of the part he took in enforcing the separation and congregation measures of the French Government. When he appeared at Kansas City after America's entrance into the World War the Catholic Bishop of that dio cese refused to appear on the platform with him. Viviani was a busy man when he came to America last Spring, and he made acquaintance with Senator Lodge and others with whom he will be closely associated in connection with the armament conference. THE JAPANESE DELEGATES Prince Iyesato Tokugawa, who will head the Japanese delegation, is President of the House of Peers in the Japanese Parliament. Educated in England, he speaks English fluently. When he visited the United States years ago he was so well received and so cordially treated that he has never ceased to express kindly feelings for America and Americans. A picturesque atmosphere surrounds his personality in that he is "the last of the Shoguns," who gave up their feudal lordship at the Japanese restoration. With him will be associated Admiral Tomosaburo Kato, one of Japan's naval heroes. He is a sailor, not a politician, and has no known political affiliations. Baron Kijuro Shidehara, another Japanese delegate, is the Ambassador to the United States, a man of poise and high attainments, whose capacity for writing strong diplomatic notes has given him a high standing among diplomats the world over. Washington will be glad to welcome Masanao Hanihara, the general secretary of the Japanese delegation. He served in this country for many years with the Japanese Embassy, and it is said of him that he was the most popular Oriental who ever lived in the American capital. "Honey," Honey," his friends in Washington called him in his younger days, and they will find it hard to realize that the dignified Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs -his present official title is the boyish, enthusiastic young Japanese with whom they used to frolic. THE CHINESE DELEGATES. Three young Lochinvars are coming out of the East to represent China in the conference. All of them know America, all of them speak English, and if you would better understand their occidentalism it is necessary only to look at their names. W. W. Yen, Wellington Koo and S. Alfred Sze hardly suggest the bequeued and silken Orientals whom one would expect to bring the case of China-even the New China-before an international body. They are redolent of the spirit of republicanism; there is little about them of that which we associate with the Flowery Kingdom. Would you have evidence of this in a nutshell? Then let it sink into your mind that Dr. Yen was editor-in-chief of the English and Chinese Standard Dictionary, that Dr. Koo was an editor of the school newspaper at Columbia University, and that Mr. Sze was a captain of the Washington High School Cadets. The occidentalism of their front names is born of the new spirit of China. In his native land Dr. Yen is Yen Hui-ching, Mr. Sze is Shih Chao-chi, and Mr. Koc is Yen Kungch’o. But for all essential purposes the new names serve and are a constant reminder that the old order passeth in China to a gradual replacement of what is new. Dr. Yen received the finishing touches to his education at Columbia University and holds the degree of B. A. from that institution. He is also a member of Phi Beta Kappa. In a measure Dr. Yen is a connecting link between the old and the new China, for he was an officer of the late dynasty. Adopting diplomacy as his profession, he was Third Secretary of the Chinese Legation in Washington and Junior Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the dynasty, and became Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs on the establishment of the Chinese Republic in 1912. Dr. Yen has served as Minister to Denmark and Minister to Germany, and was a plenipoten tiary to the Opium Conference at The Hague in 1913. China best remembers Wellington Koo as one of that group which battled in the Paris Peace Conference against the transfer of Shantung to Japan and refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles because the principal allied and associated powers denied China's claim. His is an attractive personality. His years in America. enabled him to catch the American spirit of humor, and his after-dinner speeches have charm and a witty naïvete. Dr. Koo is 41, but nobody would suspect it. He is active physically, with a buoyant temperament and a quick mind. Dr. Koo topped off his education at the Government University at Peking by taking a law course at Columbia University. He, too, is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Under the Chinese Republic he has been an active figure with a wide experience of service to his credit. Joining the Ministry of Communications at Peking, he became Vice Minister, then Minister to Washington, Vice Minister of Finance, Minister of Communications, and lately was appointed Minister to Great Britain. In the Paris Peace Conference he was nominally an adviser on communications to the Chinese delegation, but actually took an important part in the effort to make the Big Five see the justice of China's case. His work there brought him appointment as China's representative on the Council of the League of Nations. Everybody admits that he is clever and certain to take a prominent part in the deliberations at Washington. Mr. Sze has been Minister to Great Britain and is now Minister to the United States. He is considered very pro-American. Educated at Cornell, he took up a political career in his own country and served in the Cabinet. Upon the demeanor of these and other notable personalities in the conference-statesmen of Italy. Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal -much will depend. It may not be going too far to say that the character of the men who will participate in this great international gathering has raised high hopes of a successful outcome. DOES THE MELTING POT MELT? AN answer to the foregoing question was sought by eminent students of ethnology and biology at the Second International Eugenics Congress held at the American Museum of Natural History, New York, in September. According to some of the speakers, notably Dr. Charles B. Davenport, Director of the Eugenics Record Office, and Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the Congress and an authority on evolution, the melting-pot theory is fundamentally false. "In the matter of racial virtues," he said, "my opinion is that from biological principles there is little promise in the melting-pot theory. Put three races together, and you are as likely to unite the vices of all three as the virtues." Professor Osborn pointed out the danger of the fallacy to the United States, and put himself on record, with a number of others, in favor of a restriction of immigration, adding: In the United States we are slowly awakening to the consciousness that education and environment do not fundamentally alter racial values. We are engaged in a serious struggle to maintain our historic republican institutions through barring the entrance of those who are unfit to share the duties and responsibilities of our well-founded Government." CHINA'S DILEMMA AND AMERICA'S DUTY BY STEPHEN BONSAL Japan's unrivaled opportunity, by wise action regarding China, IN view of the approaching Pacific conference, I shall endeavor to state fairly the facts of China's present dilemma, of Japan's great responsibility and unrivaled opportunity to maintain the peace of the world and of the duty of the United States in the disturbing premises. In the list of commitments which, as the provisional agenda of the conference indicate, will be taken up seriatim, our pledged support to China and our guarante of her territorial and administrative integrity, now greatly menaced, will bulk large. Our pledge to support China against outside aggression goes back to the Treaty of 1858 and is only reaffirmed in the Open Door Agreement of more recent date. In the Treaty of 1858 we pledged ourselves to use our good offices in case any nation acted unjustly toward China. Today that pledge is China's main hope of salvation from the many dangers by which she is threatened. Should we be blind to our own interests, which are only a degree less menaced than are those of China by the recent course of events in the Far East, when China presents her case to the world court of public opinion which will shortly be convened in the capital of our country, the appeal to our national honor, implicit in it, will not be made in vain or go unheeded. United and to befog the issue, friends of Japan-who in my judgment are doing her a great disservice which she will seek an early opportunity to disavow-urge that conditions in Asia are greatly changed, and that our policy should change with them. It is stated by these advocates of might and militarism that China, divided up into innumerable factions, has ceased to exist as a nation, and that our traditional and treaty-covenanted attitude toward China was abandoned by the Ishii-Lansing Agreement. The second of these claims can be shortly dismissed. The agreement referred to binds Japan, in words at least, more firmly to the promise of the Open Door and the policy of mutuality and equal opportunity in China than do any of the other special agreements dealing with this world question since the proclamation of the Hay Doctrine. The negotiations which terminated in this agreement were entered upon at a time when the French and English Foreign Offices were seriously alarmed by the attitude, if not of the Japanese Government, at least of the Japanese people, toward Germany, then still in the plenitude of her great military strength. It was, of course, at the urgent request of these powers, with whom we had become associated in the battle to save civilization, that To minimize our treaty obligations Japan was given such nosegays as |