lines that an industrial court should largely act. Nevertheless it has very large powers of legal action under the Kansas Industrial Law, and it is quite probable that in an extension of this method of dealing with industrial matters other States may find an open road leading toward industrial peace.

Mr. Gompers has lately been reported as calling the Kansas plan involuntary servitude and as announcing that organized labor would not obey the mandates of such courts as that in Kansas or the laws as laid down by those courts if other States follow Kansas's example. We hope that Mr. Gompers has been misquoted. He is not generally regarded as a Bolshevik, but a more expressly Bolshevistic utterance we rarely see. Whether such a statute and such a court as those established in Kansas are Constitutional will ultimately be established by the United States Supreme Court, not by the President of the American Federation of Labor.

THE ROOSEVELT PILGRIMAGE

N the initiative of E. H. Van Valk

enburg, of the Philadelphia "North American," a group of Theodore Roosevelt's intimate friends and associates, especially those who worked with him in the organization and campaigns of the Progressive party, have formed an association called The Roosevelt Pilgrimage. The purpose of this association was expressed last year by a resolution proposed at a meeting of the group by Gifford Pinchot:

We, who were privileged to stand beside Theodore Roosevelt in the memorable April days of 1912, resolve to return in annual pilgrimage to his grave upon the anniversary of his death; and we resolve:

That we invite all who love the man and honor the leader to join with us in this recurring testimony of our devotion to his teaching and his example; and

That we take such further action as will provide for the annual pilgrimage and will serve to keep alive a vital interest in the principles and personality of Theodore Roosevelt.

The first gathering of the Roosevelt Pilgrimage was held on January 6, 1921. On that occasion nine men journeyed to Oyster Bay. This year on the anniversary of Roosevelt's death about sixty men and women made the pilgrimage to the grave, where a very simple ceremony was held, which consisted of a reading of Roosevelt's Nobel Prize speech of 1910 by James R. Garfield, who was in his Cabinet. A wreath was laid upon the grave by one of the pilgrims, Mrs. Thomas Robbins, of Philadelphia. The company then, on the invitation of Mrs. Roosevelt, went to the home at Sagamore Hill, where after a

(C) Dorr

BUST OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT

This portrait bust, by James Earle Fraser, of New York, is to be placed in the Lafayette Museum, in Paris. A replica was unveiled recently at New Rochelle, New York, by Mrs. Corinne Roosevelt Robinson, a sister of the late President

simple luncheon they gathered in the great North Room. Dr. Lyman Abbott, permanent Chairman of the group, presided.

Mr. Roosevelt's daughter Ethel (Mrs. Richard Derby) read from her father's handwriting the call for the creation of the Progressive party; Mr. Hermann Hagedorn read a poem which was discovered after Roosevelt's death to have made a great impression upon him; and after an hour of fellowship the meeting adjourned.

It is not the purpose of this group to create a formal organization, but to afford a means for the friends of Roosevelt to renew their old friendships and fellowships annually on the day of his death.

liament of the self-styled Irish Republic by a vote of 64 to 57 ratified the peace agreement with Great Britain. Later Arthur Griffith was elected President of the Dail Eireann and is expected to organize a provisional government under the treaty.

Just what will follow De Valera's resignation as President of the Irish Republic, his summoning of those who followed him in the bitter contest before the Dail Eireann to a new conference, and his open refusal to accept anything but absolute independence for Irelandall this remains to be seen. Nor must it be forgotten that in the heat of debate Michael Collins, a leader of the Sinn Fein faction which urged ratification, declared in response to a question from De Valera that the present agreement would not end the Irish struggle for independence. As for Ulster's reluctance to enter the Irish Free State, it is admitted that the situation is a difficult one for the northern Protestant population. But Ulster should remember that the desperate struggle of the last three years drew much of its bitterness from the extreme action and threats of the Unionist party in the days just before the Great War. How far Carson and his followers went is told in the pages on Ireland in Mr. H. G. Wells's "Outline of History."

The best and the only true view is that the Irish people, apart from factions and theorists and past bitterness, realize that what is offered is substantial liberty and justice. The old acrimony and the old sorrow should fade before this genuine offer of self-government. We believe that Ireland is entering upon a new, peaceful, and prosperous existence. The agreement with Great Britain repeatedly declares that Ireland's status shall be that of Canada, and to assert that Canada is subject to tyranny or oppression would be preposterous.

In the words of the compact, Ireland enters "the community of nations known as the British Empire."

The outcome of what must have at times seemed a hopeless undertaking is a welcome proof that the arts of conciliation may prevail over the art of war. It is hard for the average AngloSaxon's logical brain to understand how men like De Valera could bring themselves to enter into a conference when they were determined to die rather than to accept anything less than that international independence which had been positively refused consideration before the conference began. Having agreed to negotiate outside that basis, it was wildly unreasonable to insist on that basis as the only one possible.

Ireland is now to be self-governed, to

be a free state, to be a nation-for that word is used in the agreement, and the limitations of national power named in the agreement do not indicate that Ireland is less than a nation in the same broad sense that the word may be used (and often is used) in the case of Canada.

The civilized world is to-day congratulating Ireland on entering the family of sef-governed peoples. It may also well congratulate the English Prime Minister and his colleagues for their patience, good temper, and persistence in dealing with this difficult and delicate question. Ireland has been a backwater in the stream of democratic advance for centuries; hereafter she will form a part of that stream and will help in carrying the prosperity of the world at large as well as Ireland's flag and Ireland's national pride.

THE NEEDS OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

T

HE creation of what is known as the "Agricultural Bloc" in Congress has at least served to bring before the city dwellers of the country a renewed realization of the pressing importance of the problems of American agriculture. If it has done no more than this, it has performed at least one valuable service.

It is a very trite thing to say, but, like the Ten Commandments, a thing which will bear frequent repetition, that agriculture is the fundamental industry of the country. Save in sporadic instances, it has never had the recognition which it deserved in and from our Federal Government. Read, for instance, the roll of the House of Representatives and note the comparatively small number of men who have made a profession of farming on that list.

We do not believe that neglect of our farm problems, as some of our correspondents apparently think, has been due to any general conspiracy on the part of those who dwell in towns and cities. It may have been due largely to the ignorance of urbanites, but in greater part it has been due to the very nature of the neglected industry. Our farming has been carried on by the most individualistic citizens of our Nation. Their individualistic frame of mind is a natural product of that physical and industrial isolation in which farming has moved and had its being.

This individualistic attitude has been encouraged in large measure by those who stand between the farmer and the consuming public. It is to the material advantage of the middleman and to the material disadvantage of the farmer and

the consumer that the producer should not be able, through organization, to control his sales. "Divide and rule" has been the policy of the middleman. "Divided we fall" has been too often the fate of farm organizations which have attempted to better market conditions for our farmers. So far as scientific production is concerned, the farmer has kept abreast of the times. But, as Mr. Bernard M. Baruch pointed out in a recent article in the "Atlantic Monthly," so far as integration of his business is concerned, the farmer has been working under the handicap of a system which is at least half a century behind the times. It is in this same article that Mr. Baruch sums up as briefly and clearly as we have seen them stated anywhere the demands of those farmers who are seeking a relief from present conditions. We quote Mr. Baruch's summary in full:

as

First: storage warehouses for cotton, wool, and tobacco, and elevators for grain, of sufficient capacity to meet the maximum demand on them at the peak of the marketing period. The farmer thinks that either private capital must furnish these facilities or the State must erect and own the elevators and warehouses.

Second: weighing and grading of agricultural products, and certifica

91

tion thereof, to be done by impartial and disinterested public inspectors (this is already accomplished to some extent by the Federal licensing of weighers and graders), to eliminate underpaying, overcharging, and unfair grading, and to facilitate the utilization of the stored products as the basis of credit.

Third: a certainty of credit sufficient to enable the marketing of products in an orderly manner.

Fourth: the Department of Agriculture should collect, tabulate, summarize, and regularly and fréquently publish and distribute to the farmers, full information from all the markets of the world, so that they shall be as well informed of their selling position as buyers now are of their buying position.

Fifth: freedom to integrate the business of agriculture by means of consolidated selling agencies, co-ordinating and co-operating in such way as to put the farmer on an equal footing with the large buyers of his products, and with commercial relations in other industries.

Certainly most of these aims seem reasonable both from the point of view of the producer and the consumer. That the financial authorities are coming to see the need for development along these lines is indicated by Mr. Baruch's sane and discriminating comment. Practical evidence to this fact is given by

such a development of the spirit of cooperation as has been shown by the Chamber of Commerce of St. Louis in its relations to the farmers in the territory surrounding that city. An article on this development from the pen of Sherman Rogers, our industrial correspondent, will appear in an early issue of The Outlook.

mote sectarian theology; there is no reason to suppose that in any of these States sectarian conflicts have been embittered or intensified. It is my impression, though I have no figures to confirm that impression, that the most bitter anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish journals have their largest circulation in those States in which the Bible is not read in the schools.

In our public schools it is, so far as I

S

THE BIBLE?

EVERAL correspondents have written to me in reply to an editorial bearing the above title published

in The Outlook for December 14. They think that if the Bible were taught in our public schools the result would be the teaching of sectarian theology and that would be neither safe nor just. Two paragraphs from two of these correspondents must suffice here to put their view before my readers:

Your plea for religious teaching in the schools-for such the reading of the Bible becomes-is one thing; what this teaching would degenerate into is quite another. Is there any doubt that it would become theological teaching? Is it not true that "religion" as defined in the Epistle of James and as defined by Jesus in his digest of the "laws and commandments" is as different from the average American conception of religion as "zenith and nadir"? W. S.

While the Bible is all that Dr. Abbott says it is, what assurance have we that it will be taught as he sees it? If it would be taught only as a historical, political, and literary subject, there could be little objection. What people object to is the different dogmatic interpretations injected into the religious part of the instruction. That is where the danger lies. L. M. Exactly what this danger is neither of my correspondents states explicitly. But it was stated some years ago by a Wisconsin judge in the following terms:

There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrels, fights, malignant opposition, and war and all evil in the State as religion. Let it once enter into our civil affairs and our Government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools and they would soon be destroyed.

The answer to these apprehensions is found in the facts of American history. The latest official reports are not at hand, but it is authoritatively and, I presume, accurately reported that in thirty-eight States of the Union the reading of the Bible in the public schools is by law permitted, in three of these required, in the others permitted. It is not recorded that in any of these States the Bible has been used to pro

cises, but in a great majority of private schools and in nearly all endowed colleges it is systematically taught. In few, if any, of these schools and colleges, except those which are professedly denominational, is the teaching conducted for the purpose of promoting scholastic theology.

In many of the colleges this teaching is supplemented by volunteer classes organized by the students themselves. And these Bible classes, instead of promoting "strife, quarrels, fights, malignant opposition, and war," are found to be a means of encouraging and increasing fellowship.

In many colleges there are systematic courses in the study, not only of the Bible, but of comparative religions. In these classes are afforded advantages for the study of the sacred books of pagan peoples and an opportunity to compare their teachings with those of the Old and New Testaments. Columbia University has, I believe, the largest student body of any university in America, and probably there is no university which has a more heterogeneous student population. The study of religion is required during the first year of the academic course; different professors take part in the courses of instruction. Not only do members of all the various Christian denominations unite in studying this course, but with them, pursuing the same study under the same instructors, are Agnostics, Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, and Pagans.

The Young Men's Christian Association is a Nation-wide educational institution. It conducts classes, gives lectures, publishes text-books. Bible study is an important part of its educational work. The classes are often large; the students always eager. No ecclesiastical conditions are required for admission to these classes. It would violate the fundamental principles of the Association if they were used for sectarian propaganda. They do not harden sectarian prejudice; their influence is to dissolve it.

Thus the facts of American life do not justify my correspondents' fears. It is true that historically religion has been a prolific source of strife. But the remedy is not to guard our youth

against religion but to promote their acquaintance with one another's form of religious expression and phases of religious experience. Ignorance is never a cure for anything. Misunderstanding is never a means of promoting peace. Good will between Jew, Christian, and Pagan, between Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Agnostic, will not be promoted by keeping them in ignorance of one another's faith, but by making them acquainted with one another's faith.

In two respects I differ with my correspondents. I think that a study of the life, laws, and literature of the ancient Hebrews is peculiarly desirable in this country, and I covet for the boys and girls who depend on the State for their schools an education as broad, as generous, and as spiritual as the men of wealth can obtain for their children in private schools. And I am more democratic than my correspondents; I believe that the plain people of America can discriminate between religion and sectarian theology and can create and maintain schools which will promote the one without teaching the other. One of my correspondents asks me, "Is it wise to trust teachers who, like most Americans, are theology-infected?" I reply:

Whenever a State covets for its children schools able to give them all forms of knowledge and fearing none, it can find or create the teachers.

LYMAN ABBOTT.

THE BOY AND THE CAMP

Ο

NE of the best ways for a journal to start a fight is to publish a controversial article on the subject of education, for every one knows how to bring up everybody else's children. When some authority puts forward a theory of boy or girl training, he is watched quite as critically by all observers as a man who attempts to poke up an open fire in a room full of people. There are almost as many theories in regard to the building of fires and the raising of children as there are fires and children.

So when Mr. C. K. Taylor, who, by the way, has studied at close hand a whole army of boys in their formative years, attempted in The Outlook for October 26 to point out the error which the Government was making in putting boys of sixteen and seventeen in military training camps which contained older men, he quite naturally brought down a shower of both praise and denunciation. He was commended by army officers and condemned by army officers. He received letters which showed understanding and discrimination, and letters, like

one from a certain general, which began, "I was so indignant at your article that I refused to read it."

Perhaps the most careful letter of criticism came from Chaplain Harry C. Fraser, U. S. A. We wish we had space to publish it in full. Chaplain Fraser points out in his letter that the officers chosen for handling the camps where he was stationed were hand-picked young men, eager to assume the rôle of instructors and friends of the youths intrusted to their care. He points out that the pace was set, not for the older men, but for the youngest lads in the camp, that the camp was isolated from town and from the Regulars and Guardsmen in the vicinity, that church and recreation facilities were afforded to all, that not a single or untoward incident marred the camp, and that parents, press, and boys were enthusiastic over the work and its results. Chaplain Fraser quotes as a typical comment from a parent a set of observations made by a Boston lawyer on the effect of the camp upon his son:

1. My boy came back more manly, with a broader vision and a capacity for making friends.

2. It took him out of himself, and, instead of saying "I did it," he now says "We.”

3. He had been doing a man's job with men whose devotion to their work won his respect and admiration.

4. I feel that, instead of installing in him a desire to fight, he learned loyalty, obedience, and a respect for authority. This to my lad, in the process of becoming a man, is invaluable.

5. Most important of all, he was taught that service well performed is the best stepping-stone to success in any line of activity. My boy could have gotten that training in no other institution with which I am familiar.

Chaplain Fraser's letter deals with the camp at Devens, Massachusetts, but we have no doubt that in almost every particular it is equally applicable to other camps conducted by the War Department. Nor do we doubt the accuracy of the facts stated by Chaplain Fraser. We believe that Mr. Taylor will agree with us in this acknowledgment. We are quite certain, however, that the statements of Chaplain Fraser do not vitiate in the least the main conclusion in Mr. Taylor's previous article, and that was that a military camp which contains boys below the age of eighteen and boys and men above that age does not offer a proper solution of the problem of adolescent training. The natural question is, Well, if you don't like this kind of a camp, what kind do you like? In reply to such a query we will refer the questioner to Mr. Taylor's article in this issue, in which he de

scribes a camp for boys under the age of eighteen which, in his view and ours, would meet the physical and mental needs of those critical years.

Kipling's "Army of a Dream" was a graphic picture of an imaginary military system designed to create a nation trained and accustomed to arms. It was a brilliant, imaginative picture of a plan for the future that could never be and never ought to be. We do not think that Mr. Taylor has attempted to enter into a literary rivalry with Rudyard Kipling, but his imaginative vision has at least one thing which the great Kipling's dream lacks. Mr. Taylor's vision of the future not only can be, but ought to be.

WHATZA MATTER? NO JOB?"

W

borrow the title of this editorial from the article on unemployment by Charles R. Walker, Jr., in this issue. It was to answer this question that the President last September called a Conference at Washington of many notable men in the world of labor and industry. The final report of this Conference lies before us in the form of a pamphlet 178 pages in length.

This Federal Conference on Unemployment has to its credit some very real accomplishments in the stimulus which it has given to private, municipal, and State activity. As a direct result of the Conference, Secretary Hoover, who was its Chairman, believes that more than a million and a half men and women to-day have employment who would otherwise still be idle. Noteworthy among the achievements of the Conference has been the increased sale of bonds for the construction of public works. Over $60,000,000 worth have been recently sold in 13 States, and $34,000,000 more have been offered for sale. These bonds were for enterprises to be constructed by municipalities and townships; $20,000,000 more of State bonds for similar purposes have been sold or are offered for sale.

The problem of unemployment is one which cannot be summarized in figures or realized solely by means of graphs. In the end it comes down, as Mr. Walker shows, to Joe Renick's bank account and Racinski's babies. It is a problem the measure of which cannot be understood unless it is looked at against a background of suffering human beings. This is what Mr. Hoover meant when he spoke before the Academy of Folitical Science and said:

One of the causes of ill will that weighs heavily upon the community

is the whole problem of unemployment. I know of nothing that more filled the mind of the recent Conference, while dealing mainly with emergency matters, than the necessity to develop further remedy, first, for the vast calamities of unemployment in the cyclic periods of depression, and, second, some assurance to the individual of reasonable economic security-to remove the fear of total family disaster in loss of the job.

It is because the Conference has approached the problem of unemployment from this angle that it has had the vision, not only to attempt to relieve present conditions, but also to plan largely and broadly for the future. Cycles of industrial depression have been regarded in the past as necessary attributes of our industrial system. Again to quote Mr. Hoover:

I am not one who regards these matters as incalculable. Thirty years ago our business community considered the cyclic financial panic as inevitable. We know now we have cured it through the Federal Reserve System. The problem requires study. It, like our banking system, requires a solution consonant with American institutions and thought. Many American industries are themselves finding solutions. There is a solution somewhere, and its working out will be the greatest blessing yet given to our economic system, both to the employer and the employee.

Mr. Edward Eyre Hunt, in The Outlook for January 4, described the Kenyon Bill for the long-range planning of public works, a bill which is a realization of one of the most important conclusions of the Unemployment Conference. The principle of this bill involves the creation of a financial reserve in time of prosperity for the deliberate purpose of improvement and expansion in time of depression. This bill, if it becomes law, may be the starting-point for the elimination of much of the suffering which has been caused by cycles of depression in the past. It establishes a principle which, if faithfully adhered to by States, municipalities, and industrial concerns, would practically iron out our present fluctuations in employment. Our present system of building and improving plant equipment when material costs are at a peak and labor is at a premium reacts to the profound disadvantage of both manufacturer and consumer. If we can arrive at such a state of intelligent organization of industry that we build when costs are low and men are in need of employment, the radicals will lose one of their best arguments against society as it is now organized. If such a development occurs, the recent Conference on Unemployment will be looked back to as a historic occasion.

A

seems

NY one who has built a house knows despair. As the day for moving in approaches the impossibility of ever living in that house The more and more evident. walls are up, the roof is shingled, the windows are in, the doors are hung; but the house looks as if it were never going to be habitable. There is still that drain to be finished. The kitchen closet is in the wrong place, and has to be torn down and rebuilt. The painters are ready to begin, but have to wait till the carpenters get through. What with this delay about the plumbing and that about the electric-light fixtures and others that are unexpectedly announced each morning-delays that are explicable and indeed unavoidable-the

exhilaration

that began with the planning and rose when the foundations were laid and continued as the main structure took shape has oozed, and in its place there is only the wish that the whole process were over and done with.

That is about the way it is with the Armament Conference at the close of the first week of the new year.

In building such a structure there are bound to be disappointments. We had no idea the chimneys were going to look like that-they didn't look like that to us in the architect's sketch. Do they draw? Oh, yes; they draw beautifully. It is too bad that we had to abandon the wing we had planned; but the day may come when we can add that. There is a good deal of grading to be done, and that will take a long time. True; but in the meantime we can live in the house quite comfortably. Besides, the house is much larger and better than any of us expected-if we only take the trouble to recall how modest our expectations Of course some of us fancied a were. palace-in fact, a gimcrack affair that would not have answered for a dwelling at all. Disappointment that follows unreasonable expectation is itself reasonable. In fact, it is a form of tribute to real success.

un

When the Conference was called, the tension between Japan and the United States was a cause for some anxiety. The relation between the two countries was not such as to portend conflict, but it was not such as one likes to see between friends. The situation was sufficiently unpleasant to lead students of international relations to examine it to see if it contained any elements that might become causes of war; and, though there was nothing which would lead a government not bereft of its senses to begin hostilities on either side,

there were occasions of friction and misunderstanding. In particular, the Japanese people and the Japanese Government were increasingly suspicious of America's purposes and in fear of America's power. On the other side, America was becoming more and more doubtful about the alliance between Britain and Japan. While the Japanese were wondering what country America was building her great navy against Americans were wondering what country the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was directed against. Japan was sure that the United States, had no prospect of war with Great Britain or any other European Power, and consequently felt that she must be the Power which the United States was viewing with hostility.

On the other side, America, knowing that the original object of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance had vanished with Japan's defeat of Russia and its secondary object had been removed by the defeat of Germany in the World War, was.coming to the conclusion that Japan must have been holding fast to it with a view to possible hostilities with America. Neutral observers were coming to the conclusion that war was brewing in the Pacific.

Now that mutual suspicion has been dissipated.

When at the very beginning of this Conference America laid her plans

openly on the table, offering to abandon her naval programme and render herself impotent to start a naval war by an attack in the western Pacific, asking only that Japan respond in kind, Japan received proof of America's friendliness.

And when by the substitution of the Four Power Treaty, a non-military agreement of mutual respect and confidence, the way was opened for scrapping the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, America received assurance of Japan's friendliness.

Even when groundless, fear of war has an evil effect. In America it has been of aid to the demagogue; in Japan it has lent strength to the power of the militarists. Now such fear not only is groundless but manifestly appears groundless. War in the Pacific would have been senseless in any case; equally senseless now is the fear of it.

A comparison of the relation between these two countries alone as it was before the Conference and that relation as it is now serves thus as a measure of the Conference's achievement. But it is only one measure. A change of like kind (though there may not have been occasion for a change in like degree)

between all the nations engaged in conferring together here in Washington has been evident. In spite of one or two episodes during which delegates spoke sharply, the whole course of the Conference has been marked by good feeling. Indeed, the very frankness and publicity distinctive of this Conference which led to these episodes-breezes that ruffled the surface of the waters, as one delegate termed them-may fairly be held accountable for the good feeling and friendliness. There have been discussions and compromises, but even the most assiduous sleuths among the correspondents have not been able to bring to light any identifiable case of intrigue. Far more important than any limitation in naval armament has been the effect of this Conference in moral disarmament.

It is not the naval ratio or the Four Power Treaty or the Root Resolutions on China, or the new rules about submarines, or any decision about poison gas, or Shantung, or Manchuria, or Siberia, that may come out of this Conference, or all of them put together, that constitute the main structure which has been erected here; it is rather this new relationship between nations, this

newly established habit of dealing with international questions, this practice of co-operation.

Nobody can intelligently claim that the structure is perfect. English and French, Chinese and Japanese, elements in the architecture do not yet quite harmonize; but these are subject to modification. As a whole, however, the structure is a great improvement upon what has served the nations for a habitable dwelling and seems to be substantial.

Having surveyed the building as a whole, let us examine now some of the doors and windows that have just been put in and some of the fixtures that are ready for installation.

One of the most important features that have been decided upon is the limitation of airplane carriers. In order to understand this, it is necessary to consider the purpose of a navy. If naval vessels are to be anything more than mere raiders, harassing commerce or coasts, they must be strong enough to seize and hold strategic positions. Vessels that can do this are capital ships. They are the vessels, and the only vessels, that can win naval wars. Among the ancients they were biremes or triremes, vessels propelled by banks of oars. To-day they are the huge floating fortresses known, according to their and speed, as battleships or

armor