Слике страница



of which our American scientific explorers are made. All honor to them!



HE increasing worth from an art standpoint of the collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, as well as their magnitude, is indicated by the inconspicuousness of a collection of excellent pictures now on exhibition there, which are lent by Mr. C. C. Stillman in memory of his father, James Stillman. Amid the vast galleries of the Museum one must search and inquire to find these gems gathered by the well-known banker and art patron. The connoisseur, the critic, and the ordinary lover of good pictures will be well rewarded, however, for the trouble involved in finding them, scattered as they are in several rooms according

to their subject. The dozen paintings (one of which is reproduced above) represent old masters of the Dutch, Spanish, French, and Italian schools. The richly colored portrait by Rembrandt of his son Titus is a notable example of the great Dutch master, warm in tone and characteristically virile and spontaneous in style. Francia's "St. Barbara" presents a more feminine aspect of the patron saint of the soldier than the masterpiece by Palma Vecchio in Venice, but one well worth studying. Pontormo's "Halberdier" makes an interesting companion piece to the St. Barbara. Two full-length portraits by Moroni will attract special attention on account of the skill with which their neutral color scheme is handled by this master of portraiture. Religious paintings by Murillo, Tiepolo, and Boccaccio Boccaccino form notable examples of the

work of these masters. Good examples of Nattier and Vestier will please the lovers of these painters of the fair ladies of the ancien régime.





[blocks in formation]

have been reporting serious rioting, looting, and other disorders of revolutionary character in Cairo, Egypt. These indicate that the British endeavors to carry on an Egyptian protectorate in the spirit in which it has approached Ireland and has successfully created a new nation out of South Africa are neither understood nor appreciated by certain elements among the Egyptians.

The story of Egypt is a dramatic one. With the possible exception of China it has had a longer unbroken national history than any other country known to man, most of which time it has suffered the pangs and perils of an outrageous despotism. Those who still continue to read the Old Testament will recall the despotism of the early dynasties. In modern times the Turks have taken Over the autocratic scepter of the Pharaohs. When the Suez Canal was built, in the middle of the last century, the Turks were in control of southern Egypt and savage Sudanese dominated the Province of Sudan. For the welfare of the entire civilized world it was essential that civilized agents should administer and protect the Suez Canal as a great international highway of travel. Therefore a joint British and French protectorate was established over Egypt. But joint-stock companies are never successful in government administration. The partnership between England, Germany, and the United States failed in Samoa; the partnership between England and France failed in Egypt. France therefore withdrew on terms which were mutually satisfactory to her and to Great Britain, and for a generation Egypt has been a British protectorate.

The value of this protectorate to the Egyptians themselves and to the world at large is incalculable. The fellahin, or peasant farmers, of Egypt have never been so prosperous or so familiar with justice and order as they have been under British rule. Schools and hospitals have been established; the characteristic and terrible eye disease has been restricted and controlled; the river Nile has been dammed and its flood waters, which used to destroy innumerable crops, have been regulated and made a blessing instead of a menace; the Sudan has been civilized. But there are misguided Egyptians, as there are misguided Americans, who think that what

is called self-determination is more important than health, education, justice, and family life.

These self-determinationists, therefore, began to fight the British governmental administration by assassination. They murdered in 1910 Boutros Pasha, the Prime Minister of Egypt, who was himself a native Egyptian. Fortunately, Great Britain suppressed this Bolshevik uprising with a firm hand. We say fortunately, because if the revolutionists had got control Egypt would have been successfully invaded by the Turks under German leadership during the World War, the Suez Canal would have been cut, the East would thus have been separated from the Western theater of war, and the war might have been won by Germany.

Recently, with most commendable motives, English Liberals have been urging a greater degree of self-government for Egypt, although it has now a very large degree of self-government. Viscount Milner, who has been exceedingly successful as a colonial administrator of South Africa, was therefore sent to Egypt and reported a plan to the British Foreign Office for a very large withdrawal from Egypt of the English Government administration. Because this plan was not radical enough to suit the ideas of Egyptian visionaries and Egyptian revolutionaries a protest has been made against it in the form of the riots and uprising which have recently been taking place. The rioters, like the extreme Sinn Feiners in Ireland, want a republic or nothing, ignorant or forgetful of the fact that republics are not made by the stroke of a pen, but are the product of long evolutionary processes.

The Cairo riots indicate how dangerous it would be for Great Britain to withdraw wholly from Egypt, for some civilized Power of experience and wisdom must protect the Suez Canal, to say nothing of protecting the mass of Egyptians from injustice, disease, and ignorance. There is a lesson in this experience for the people of the United States in their relations to Santo Domingo and Haiti. One principle, however, must be always and constantly borne in mind. A Power like the United States or like Great Britain, if it has to administer the affairs of a less-developed people, must perform the task for the benefit first of the people themselves, second for human society at large, and not at all for the selfish interests of the trustee. England has followed this principle in Egypt with great sincerity and patience, and its perplexing and unprofitable problem in that benighted country should command for the British statesmen who are trying to solve it the sympathy of all well-intentioned people.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

senting his brother with a year's subscription to The Outlook wrote him as follows:

will I hope you like The Outlook. I do not always like it, or rather I might better say that I do not always agree with it. In fact, I disagreed with it so strongly a few months ago that I shopped around in earnest to try to get something to take its place. However, I could not get anything that presented the news in better form. I feel that by reading all the news items, I can keep well informed without wading through a lot of rubbish. Generally the editorials are well worth reading. The contributed articles are sometimes fine; usually they are interesting; occasionally they are downright poor. On the whole, though, The Outlook is the best weekly published, I think.

[ocr errors][merged small]


HE New York "Times" has announced a series of articles by Ray Stannard Baker dealing with the inside history of the Paris Peace Conference. It is stated that this story will be based upon the private records of the Conference which are in exPresident Wilson's personal possession. These records were kept in a carefully guarded steel box which contained, according to the announcements of the "Times:"

The secret records of the Big Four in Paris;

Documents and letters seen only by Wilson, Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Orlando, and a few confidential advisers;

Minutes carefully guarded from public view by the Government chiefs;

Personal memoranda signed by the great leaders of the Peace Conference; Confidential reports from statesmen and military men;

Europe's secret treaties which have been mysteries for two generations.

What use Mr. Baker will make of these records is of course not yet evident, nor is it fair to say that ex-President Wilson has released for publication documents which by all standards of honor should be kept confidential. Perhaps at the present time strictures should be confined to the manner in which the New York "Times" has announced its proposed series. It is

always the aim of the advertising headline writer to prepare copy which will have selling punch. In the present instance he has obviously violated those standards of good taste for which the "Times" has been notable. We hope that Mr. Baker's articles will prove that good taste alone has been violated and not those requirements of trust and honor which make confidential relationships possible.

If the documents to be published are correctly described in the "Times" advertisements, although they may be in the physical possession of Mr. Wilson, they are not his personal property. They belong in the archives of the State Department.



HE Creator provided the United States of America with some of the most magnificent forests and woodlands in the world, but failed to provide the Americans with sufficient intelligence to take proper care of them. The result has been that until about fifteen years ago we treated our forests with prodigal wastefulness. Even so late as March, 1919, Mr. Arthur D. Little, a well-known chemical engineer of Boston, wrote a paper in which he said:

The wastes in lumbering are proverbial, and, as Mark Twain said about the weather, we all talk about it but nothing is done. With a total annual cut of forty billion feet, board measure, of merchantable lumber, another seventy billion feet are wasted in the field and at the mill. . . . But the wastes in lumbering, colossal though they are in absolute amount, are trivial compared to the losses which our estate has suffered, and still endures, from forest fires.

Under the Forest Service this kind of thing has been radically changed. The United States, having formerly been perfectly ignorant and callous about forestry and having had to learn the science and art of tree protection and tree cultivation from Europe, has now become one of the foremost countries in the world in the scientific and economic use of one of the most valuable natural resources of mankind. We have only to turn to China to see what devastation and suffering follows the ignorant and careless handling of forests.

The development of the United States Forestry Service has practically all come about in the last fifteen years. It was established on its present basis in the Department of Agriculture during the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. It is now proposed to transfer the Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture to the Interior Department

in connection with the reorganization of the Federal Government departments. A reorganization of these departments is greatly needed, but reorganization in itself is useless, and sometimes worse than useless, if it is not done reasonably and wisely. The transfer is advocated by Secretary Fall, of the Department of the Interior, but is opposed by practically every forester and every forestry association in the United States.

The chief argument in favor of the transfer is that the Interior Department deals with public lands; that many of our great forests are on public lands; and that all questions connected with public lands should be centralized under one department. At first blush this seems a sound argument, but a little examination of the question will show that it does not fit the case.

In the first place, the Forest Service in fifteen years under the Department of Agriculture has grown to be one of the great successful and beneficent bu reaus of the Government. This growth is partly due to the intimate relation of forestry to agriculture. The essence of forestry is raising crops of trees, and it is therefore an agricultural work. For

est Service activities are closely connected with those of other branches of the Department of Agriculture. Tree diseases must be studied and combated by the pathologists of the Department of Agriculture. Insect pests must be controlled by the Bureau of Entomology, which is a branch of the Department of Agriculture. Eradication of poisonous herbs and the improvement of forage grasses in forest tracts which are used for grazing depend upon the work of the Bureau of Plant Industry, which is in the Department of Agriculture. The control of predatory animals, such as mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, which are injurious to the grazing tracts of forest, requires close contact with the Biological Survey, which is a part of the Department of Agriculture. A very important part of the Forest Service, which is perhaps not generally known, has to do with the management of the grazing land in forest tracts of the Western mountains, and this work must be in close contact with the Bureau of Animal Husbandry, which is a part of the Department of Agriculture.

Thus it will be seen that the research work of the Forest Service, which is

essential to the development of sound forestry methods, depends on close relationship with the scientists and scientific atmosphere of the Department of Agriculture-the greatest department of biological science maintained by any government in the world. To sever this connection would destroy the very purpose for which the Forest Service exists, with resultant deterioration or destruction of the productive capacity of the National Forests.

The Forest Service has been managed for fifteen years in a non-political and efficient manner, and has steadily grown in the respect of men and communities who at first were suspicious of it. If its efficiency is weakened or curtailed by a transfer made ostensibly in the interests of efficiency, it would be as unwise and as unbusinesslike a thing as the Government could possibly do.

We hope that the President, who has deeply at heart the reorganization and revitalization of Government efficiency, will not indorse the proposed transfer without the most careful consideration; for if he gives it the most careful consideration we believe he will not indorse it at all.





-E cannot disarm in an armed world."


When these words came from the lips of a British spokesman who was addressing a large group of press correspondents during Christmas week at the Armament Conference, they occasioned no stir, aroused no antagonism, set no special writer to preparing an article on British ambition.

Why is it, then, that words to the same effect when used by French spokesmen raise an outcry at once against France as an obstacle to the restoration of the spirit of peace?

It is certainly not because Britain is in danger, while France is secure. On the contrary, Britain to-day is obviously much freer from foreign peril than France. It is simply because Britain has taken the pains to create a friendly audience, while France has not. Britain has been well served by her diplomatists, while France by hers has been served ill.

When the British argue that they cannot disarm in an armed world, and are commended for saying so, those unfriendly to Britain call it British propaganda.

When the French argue that they must be armed in an armed world, and are reproved for saying so, many even

of those who are friendly to France call it French imperialism.

Briand pictures in words a Germany still morally armed, whose outrages against civilization are fresh in the memory of mankind, and declares that France must still guard herself, and people shake their heads and call Francè militaristic. Then Balfour pictures in words an imaginary France, planning some future submarine warfare against Britain, though the real France, still prostrated by war, is before the very eyes of mankind, and people shake their heads again and call France imperialistic.

In America at least France has been speaking to an audience of skeptics; Britain, to an audience of believers. This is not by chance. Each country has created its own audience, or rather, the diplomats of each country have. Apparently the French diplomats have assumed that their business was with diplomats alone, that diplomacy was something still to be carried on by professionals, and have consequently made little effort to make their case understood by the peoples of other countries; while the British diplomats, without discarding the proved canons of their profession, recognize the fact that today diplomacy engages not merely the

professional diplomatists themselves but masses of people. In this respect diplomacy has followed the development of war. It is no longer confined to the regulars, but is extended to the citizenry.

As that country would be surely beaten in war which ignored the conditions of modern warfare, so will that country be beaten in diplomatic negotiations which ignores the conditions of modern diplomacy.

At Washington all the machinery of the Conference has been built for the use of a diplomacy of the modern ind. The facilities for connecting the delegates with the peoples of the nations involved, so that information may go from the Conference to the people and knowledge of public opinion may be conveyed in return to the delegates, included meeting-places for conferences between representatives of the delegations and the press correspondents. In the New Navy Building, where these meeting-places are grouped, the British Empire is bounded on the south by Japan, on the west by China, and on the north by Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands.

Instead of finding their way from hotel to hotel in various parts of the city to get information, the press correspondents have found it for the

most part sufficient to go from one headquarters in this building to another. It is true that no correspondent seeking full information has been satisfied with merely depending upon these regular conferences, though there has been somebody to represent Great Britain, Japan, China, and usually Italy, respectively, practically every day except Sunday; but no one who attended these conferences regularly could fail to get information concerning the proceedings of the Conference from the point of view of each of the nations represented.

During all these weeks at the Conference among the nations at the New Navy Building, Belgium and Holland have been for the most part unrepresented by spokesmen because they have had little which they wished to say; but France, which has much at stake, has been conspicuous by her absence. The French headquarters have been in another part of the city, at the New Willard Hotel. There, it is true, the inquirer for information may, after making suitable appointments, receive courteous attention, and generally a representative of the delegation has regularly met correspondents at an inconvenient hour of the day and talked to them-in French. No notice of these daily gatherings at this distant point has been posted with the other notices at the general press headquarters. The French have been willing to give information to those who were willing to take some pains to seek it, but have themselves taken no pains to give information from their point of view to any others. The consequences have been almost as disastrous to the French cause as it would have been to trust to a small professional army to meet the masses of German conscripts. The French professional diplomats have been diligent and competent, but because they have trusted to the inherent strength of their country's diplomatic position, fortified Iy the merits of the case, and have supplied it with no defenders against the assaults of public opinion, they find themselves, at a critical juncture in the Conference, surrounded with adversaries. The French-atleast those at Washington-affect an indifference to the situation. Least of all people in the world, however, should the French ignore the influence of public opinion upon the destiny of nations. It was because they lacked the support of public opinion of other countries that they were left alone to meet the Germans in an unequal struggle in 1870; it was because they had the support of the public opinion not only of Europe but of almost the entire world except for their enemies that they emerged victorious in 1918. It is true that national interests determine national policies; but public opinion has a great deal to do with deciding whether the policies shall be successful or not. Just because the French are realists they ought to be able to take account of this fact, instead of failing to take account of it as they have in Washington.

Thus while the delegates of the United States, Great Britain, and Japan spent a month or so in discussing among themselves the relative strength of their respective battle fleets, the French were left, as they put it, to "cool their heels." In this stage of the discussion concerning naval ratios they took no part; they were not asked to take any part, and they felt aggrieved. Perhaps they had a right to nourish some resentment at this apparent disregard for their susceptibilities, but there are two reasons why they should have taken the matter more philosophically. In the first place, they should have realized that the purpose of this discussion was to see if some way could be found to stop the naval competition, and France was not engaged in that competition. There were no naval competitors except America, Britain, and Japan; and any conclusion concerning the subject had to be reached by those three Powers and those three Powers alone. So far as France was concerned, it was not a question of ending a naval competition but beginning one, and it was naturally supposed that France had no intention of entering the race as a new rival. France had already stopped building her capital ships and there was nothing in the world situation which led any one to suppose that she would begin burdening herself with an enormously increased navy while others were trying to get rid of naval burdens. It is said that France had put her proposed naval plans before the other nations early in the Conference; but when she virtually accepted the Hughes proposal in principle she was committed to the theory that the naval race should be stopped. If her delegates had been wise, they would have accepted the omission of France from the acute discussion as a compliment to her good sense. In the second place, they had the example of the Italians. Like France, Italy was left out of the earlier discussion; but, unlike France, Italy kept patiently, persistently, day after day, putting her case concerning the naval ratio before the press correspondents of many lands. Italy's spokesmen gave to the press correspondents information concerning Italy's military, naval, and financial condition, and they did it wisely. They did not present elaborate arguments or flood the correspondents with reams of printed or typewritten matter; they simply stated Italy's objects as her delegates would state them when the time came for discussion in the Conference. They cast no reflection on any other nation. They simply said in effect that all the nations of Europe needed relief from all unnecessary burdens and that as far as Italy was concerned she was content with any navy, no matter how small, provided it was on an equality with that of France. A French representative during these weeks might have been giving information from the French point of view, without any loss of dignity and with much gain in good will.

Meanwhile Britain was making the most of her case.

For many generations it has been the policy of England to thwart any Power in Europe that seems to be on the way toward predominance and to lend her weight to the side which seemed for the time being the weaker. Such a policy as this has many advantages. It is a policy which is always on the side of what is apparently the under dog. It is a policy of apparent aloofness from the sordid quarrels of other nations. And it is a policy which insures military help in case of any conflict against any prospective rival. It is a policy which is likely to bring the added advantage of the approval of others for a cause which is bound to result in material advantage. Before the war of 1914 Britain had two Powers to fear. One was Russia, the other Germany. By her alliance with Japan she minimized the danger from Russia and by her Entente with France put Russia in the balance with France against the Central Powers. With the destruction of Germany as a naval Power and as a rival in the carrying trade of the world Britain has found the balance in Europe tilting the other way. She finds it to her interest to restore Germany as a source of profitable trade. Having received a predominant share of Germany's colonies, England has nothing more to expect from Germany except what she can get by commerce with her. On the other hand, France has every reason to fear a resuscitated and powerful Germany and has not received from Germany what is owing to her in the way of reparation for the outrageous injury which Germany did to her. For this reason it is to the interest of France that Poland should be strong, while a strong Poland is likely to interfere with Britain's interests to the degree to which Poland secures valuable resources which Germany might otherwise have. So the British policy now is opposed to the interests of France.

What annoys Britain is that France holds an economic position from which it is difficult to dislodge her. France can virtually say to Britain: "It is true I owe you the money that you loaned me during the war; but I cannot pay it until I get what is owing to me from Germany. You do not want to press Germany for reparations because it is to your interest that Germany should not be overburdened. Very well; I shall have to manage without your help. I will make my arrangements with Germany alone-and with Turkey, for that matter. Of course I should much prefer your help. By the way, since you have a navy enormously greater than any I can hope to have, you won't mind, I am sure, my having a strong fleet of submarines and light cruisers to protect my empire, which is quite as wide-flung as yours."

Now Britain does object to any nation having a large fleet of submarines. So long as Britain has a strong battle fleet

with bases in all parts of the world, she can maintain and protect her carrying trade if no nation has the power to hold up those merchant ships in case of war. The last time any nation attempted to blockade England it was by methods that affronted the sentiments of mankind. Germany's ruthless submarine warfare brought the very name of submarine into discredit. During these weeks of the Conference, therefore, Great Britain has urged that the submarine be altogether abolished. She has argued that the submarine is useless for anything except what she calls offensive warfare. Naval experts have by no means agreed that this is true. Indeed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish in warfare between the offensive and the defensive. The British delegates have argued that, in spite of hostile submarines, millions of men were transported across the seas by Britain without the loss of a man except from hospital ships, and that that fact proves that the submarine is a feeble weapon of defense. On the other hand, it is pointed out that during the war the troops that were transported overseas were landed in friendly territory, and that.the situation would be entirely different in case of an invasion. Indeed, it is argued that the submarine as well as the mine was effective in keeping both German and British coasts comparatively free from attack. In arguing, therefore, for the abolition of the submarine as a weapon of war Great Britain has stood alone; but she has kept steadily at the task of discrediting the submarine in the eyes of the world. Of course there is no evil inherent in the submarine itself. The evil is in the outrageous abuse of it, such as that by the Germans; but the result of the British appeal to public opinion has been that any proposal to maintain a fleet of submarines is one which has in it a suggestion of obloquy.

When America, Britain, and Japan agreed upon a naval ratio of 5-5-3, they announced to France that, in their opin-, ion, the present state of the French navy was such as to make it fair for France to have a tonnage of capital ships that would make her ratio 1.75. France replied that, as she had not been consulted about the ratio, she had been thinking the matter over and she had decided on a figure about twice as large as that assigned to her. This French reply created a great deal of disturbance. By an exchange of notes Secretary Hughes secured from M. Briand, the French Premier, the French Government's consent to accept the ratio named by the three Powers, with a reservation as to the building of submarines and light cruisers. At the mention of submarines the British became denunciatory. At a session of the delegates Mr. Balfour accused France of planning war upon Britain, and at a later session Lord Lee reiterated the charge, buttressing it by quoting statements ascribed to a French naval officer in defense of Germany's ruthless subma




A new view of the personality of the famous film comedian. In this article the author of "Limehouse Nights," "Out and Around London," and other vivid books about the byways of London life goes below the surface of things and shows us the true psychology of Charles Chaplin as he sees it. It will appear in our next issue.

rine warfare. The accusation against France brought a responsive protest from M. Sarraut, head of the French delegation. And the .statements of the French naval officer were officially repudiated by the French Government. Nevertheless France thus found herself under condemnation by the peoples of two nations who had been her allies and friends.

The episode is useful as an illustration of the fact that the nation which ignores the methods of modern diplomacy-which is at the same time both mass diplomacy and open diplomacy-is bound to suffer.

Though the United States has, like the other nations with the exception of Britain, opposed the abolition of the submarine, the American delegates have proposed rules for the control of submarine warfare. These rules have been drafted by Mr. Root. The first states the existing law concerning the holding up of merchantmen on the high seas and definitely subjects the submarine to the observance of that law. The second rule would amend the existing law by prohibiting the submarine from molesting merchant vessels altogether. The third rule would subject the violator of the existing law and of the proposed amendment to the penalty of death as a pirate. Mr. Balfour for the British pro

posed that, while awaiting general acceptance by all nations of the world, the naval Powers at this Conference as among themselves, in the wholly improbable case of war between any two of them,. should accept the amendment to the existing law.

Behind Mr. Root's proposals there has risen a strong body of public opinion. There can hardly be any question of the ultimate acceptance of the first rule, which would subject the submarine to the existing law requiring any naval vessel to warn a merchant vessel before molesting her, to visit and search her and place her passengers and crew in safety before destroying her; but there is a question whether the rule which puts the submarine in a category by itself will be or ought to be accepted. It is impossible here to state the arguments for and against the proposal. It is sufficient to say that any amendment to the existing law of naval warfare ought to be accepted only after the most careful consideration, and should not be adopted merely because repugnance to the methods of the German submarine pirates has given the submarine a bad name and has seemed to invest it with an evil power like that of a fetish.

Talk to the effect that the French decision to retain freedom of action for the building of submarines and auxiliary vessels has paralyzed the Conference and brought it near to a wreck is not to be taken seriously. There can be no exhausting competition in building subordinate craft. Nobody plans such competition and nobody expects it. The existing competition for the building of capital ships has been stopped. The naval ratio has been agreed upon. The main structure of the American proposal has stood, as Mr. Balfour predicted it would stand. The ill feeling between Great Britain and France, which everybody who reads the papers knows of anyway, has been revealed once more; but it has not prevented them from reaching a common understanding on vital matters. Those who look at this Conference from a point of view in Europe are, after all, looking at it from a parochial point of view, even though Europe may be said to be a very large parish. After all, as Theodore Roosevelt pointed out, the world passed from the Mediterranean age to the Atlantic age in the course of its progress, and now is passing out of the Atlantic age into the age of the Pacific. To-day it is not the balance of Europe that needs attention; it is the balance of the world. It is no longer possible for one country to direct the course of history by directing the distribution of forces on a single continent. The Conference at Washington has accomplished already a great deal, but among all its accomplishments there is nothing that can compare with its achievement in bringing forth proof that for the future peace and welfare of the world diplomacy must not only have new methods but also new objects.


2 January, 1922.

« ПретходнаНастави »