common sense is our characteristic National quality. This faith in American common sense is sometimes sorely tried by some of the letters that come into a newspaper office. During the past winter, for example, certain readers of The Outlook have discontinued their subscriptions because it is fanatically opposed to personal liberty in the use of alcohol and because it is in the pay of corrupt and vicious liquor dealers; because it has given space to the Single Taxers to state their views and because it cannot see that the Single Tax is the sole panacea to save society from a complete smash-up; because it has advocated the rights of women in determining whether they shall assume the duties and responsibility of the ballot and because pig-headedly and manlike (this is not, in the mind of our critic, such a mixed metaphor as it may seem) we have set ourselves against granting to downtrodden woman any of her inalienable rights; because with Protestant bigotry we have subtly attacked the Roman Catholic Church on every occasion and because on every occasion we have subtly supported the Roman Catholic Church and are probably in the secret pay of the Jesuits; because British gold has influenced us to attack Germany with incredible unfairness and because our criticisms of certain failures of the War Department are due to the fact that we are at heart unpatriotic and pro-German.

Such contradictions of criticism are always to be expected in a time of deep national feeling, and by long experience we have become more or less accustomed to them, but there is such a thing as a last straw, and it has fallen with painful effect in the form of the following letter:

THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA

Gentlemen-I received your sample copies of The Outlook and your letter this morning. I have always admired The Outlook very much, but I will not aid in putting a paper before students which adds an "me" to program. Such subservience to senseless custom is not an assuring evidence of intelligent independence. I think the time has fully come for educators to take this stand. Very truly yours,

J. W. SCROGGS, Director. We congratulate our correspondent on having in these days of perplexity no greater burden than that involved in the redundant spelling of a word which we refrain from naming here in order to avoid committing almost in his presence the offense for which he takes us to task. We are thankful to him for not accusing us of being in the pay of a corrupt ring of type-founders whose profits must be greatly augmented by the sale to the newspapers and booksellers of the type and spaces, in nobody knows how many fonts, that are necessary to make that scandalously unnecessary "me." The horror of the far-reaching statis tics which might be compiled about the waste of lead, ink, paper, and labor involved in this scandal,grows as one thinks about it! Perhaps Mr. Scroggs is right. Perhaps we, who started this editorial comment so light-heartedly, are wrong. We can only repeat that the reactions of the human mind are sometimes very mysterious.

THE PACKERS

On another page we print a letter from Messrs. Swift & Co., the well-known Chicago meat-packers, in rejoinder to the findings of the Federal Trade Commission, recently reported in these pages.

On behalf of the Commission, Mr. Francis J. Heney, of California, has been conducting the investigation of the packing industry. The packers call his efforts one-sided and sensational, and prophesy that they will be wholly discredited when the public realizes all that the packers are doing to meet the present emergency.

On the other hand, Mr. Heney charges that papers used as instrumentalities in the commission of wrong have been withheld from him,,that court orders have restrained him from taking them, and even from using those already seized by his agents. Hence, to facilitate the Government's inquiry into the packing

FOR NATIONAL SERVICE

The Congress of National Service, recently held in Chicago under the auspices of the National Security League, had a definite and constructive purpose. It aimed to give impetus to an American spirit in favor of the vigorous and efficient prose cution of the war. It sought to impress upon the American peo ple the necessity of a morale which would endure sacrifice without murmuring and disaster without a shock. The plan of this campaign was presented by a notable group of educators, including Dr. Harry Pratt Judson, President of the University of Chicago; Dr. W. S. Currell, President of the University of South Carolina; Dr. Benjamin Ide Wheeler, President of the University of California; and many other college presidents and members of faculties. Sixteen State Boards of Public Instruc tion were also represented. These experienced educators entered most heartily into the programme of the League and promised co-operation.

Ex-President Taft delivered the keynote speech at the opening session, and his emphatic denunciation of the class of people whom he designated as "whispering traitors" elicited vociferous approval. Charles Edward Russell; Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, President of Leland Stanford University; Governor Manning, of South Carolina; Governor Lowden, of Illinois; Governor Whitman, of New York, Mr. Walter Camp, and others, co tributed thoughtful and inspiring addresses. Mr. S. Stanwood Menken, the President of the National Security League, in his opening address emphasized the important activities of the League, and made an eloquent plea for the mental and physical upbuilding of the Nation.

There were nearly two thousand delegates; many were women, and their interest was manifested in a session held under the chairmanship of Mrs. Thomas J. Preston, Jr. (formerly Mrs. Grover Cleveland).

The resolutions expressed in concrete form the spirit of the Congress, and were an admirable declaration of principles which the entire Nation can indorse. Three of them may be quoted here entire :

We stand for the continuance of the war until victory is attained. We condemn all efforts towards peace without victory All discussion of such a peace weakens the power and spirit of the Nation. As Lincoln said to the pacifists of his day, We accepted this war for a worthy object, and the war will end when that object is attained. Under God we hope it will not end until

that time."

approve

National needs require the extension of all educational efforts to secure a full understanding of the issues of the war, of the necessity for its vigorous prosecution, and of the obligation for service resting upon every man, woman, and child. We the campaign of patriotism through education, planned and now being pushed by the National Security League, with the immediate purpose of defeating German propaganda in the United States and of solidifying and strengthening the loyal spirit of the Nation to the winning of the war.

We reassert our conviction that without National prepared

ness for defense there is no safety. Therefore we favor the early adoption of universal military training as a permanent National policy.

One of the not least important features of the Congress was the reading of a letter from ex-Senator Root warning the delegates against the danger of attempting to negotiate a peace with Germany. "Russia," he said, "having stopped fighting in favor of the kind of peace she admired, finds herself in a position where, for the present, she has nothing whatever to say about the kind of peace there shall be. We must beware of anything in the remotest degree approaching that." In Mr. Root's opinion, which all wise Americans must inevitably share, "Germany will not abandon her present position and recede to a position which will make peace negotiations possible until she has had a thorough whipping."

JAPAN TO AID HER ALLIES AGAINST GERMANY

I'

T is not as a favor to Japan that the nations fighting Germany are willing to allow Japanese forces to land in Russian territory. It is for the protection of the real Russia, for aid in the ultimate victory of the Allies, and to block German plans of aggression in Asia.

Russia to-day has no responsible government. In every selfgoverning country the men at the head of affairs must or should have a mandate from the people. Such a mandate was refused to the men who now usurp power in Russia by the Constituent Assembly, the only national representative Assembly in Russia since the Czar was deposed. Trotsky and his associates refused to accept the will of the majority of Russians as so represented; they dispersed the Constituent Assembly; since then their power has rested on the bayonets and machine guns of a disorganized soldiery, and on the support of the local bodies of their own faction-that is, on the various workmen's and soldiers' committees. Politically speaking, there is no Russia; geographically speaking, Russia is falling apart, and Germany has her grasp on the severed portions.

It is therefore of the utmost importance to the self-governing Russia of the future that an end should be put to the constantly increasing yielding of the Lenine-Trotsky faction to Germany's demands. The statement is made from Berlin that German mili5tary action in Russia has ceased because a preliminary treaty of peace has been signed by Trotsky's delegates. What was the price? The terms of the treaty have not been made public, but it is known that again Germany has added new demands to those formerly refused by Trotsky. One most significant condition is known-Germany's insistence that Turkey shall receive back the territory in the region of Erivan, Batum, and Kars gained by Russia long ago in her wars with Turkey. This means simply that Germany, in scorn of the opinion of the civilized world, indorses her unspeakable ally, and assumes part of the guilt of the atrocious Armenian slaughter in this war. By itself alone, this indicates Germany's purpose of aggression in the East. The occupation of Kiev by Germany is another indication.

If Japan enters Siberia, that will prevent the possibility of Germany (or, what is much the same, the Bolshevik faction) seizing the enormous store of war munitions piled up at Vladivostok. Much of this material came from America. It will also prevent future extension of the Greater Germany to the Pacific-perhaps the most menacing development of PanGermany. It will block the danger from the two hundred thousand German and Austrian prisoners in Siberia. It will protect China's interest in the Chinese Eastern Railway in Manchuria, which is part of the Trans-Siberian Railway. It will guard Japan's interest in the enormous stores of munitions sold by Japan, not to the Bolsheviki, but to Russia. In the broad sense, the way, and the only way, to save all the vast interests of the East as against Germany is for Japan to control the eastern end of the Siberian Railway, certainly from Harbin eastward and southward. Japan is the only anti-German country ready and able to do this. China should assist, and, as it is an ally of Japan in the war, may be brought to assist.

The whole situation now calling for action by the Allies is

the best possible illustration of what The Outlook has repeatedly pointed out as the core of the international situation in the eastern Pacific and the countries bordering it. There must be a leader there; and, just as in the Western Hemisphere the United States assumes leadership, so must Japan be allowed to assume leadership in the East. This does not mean acquisition or aggression, but protection. Japan has spoken clearly and positively as to her purposes. The interchange of diplomatic correspondence between Viscount Ishii and Secretary Lansing defined and reiterated previous agreements. We repeat Viscount Ishii's statement as to trade: "The door is always open; it has always been open; it always must remain open." We repeat his assurance that "Japan voluntarily announces that Japan will herself engage not to violate the political or territorial integrity of her neighbor." What applies to China applies by implication to Russia.

In exchange for Japan's assurances the United States, on its part, has admitted that Japan has certain special interests in the East and has a right to guard those interests, just as America guards American interests in Haiti and Nicaragua. The Siberian movement comes under the principle, if not the verbal expression, of this mutual understanding. Japan's leadership in the East may here be turned to the account of her allies in the great war. It is to be expected that the proposed entry into Russian_territory will be accompanied by a direct state ment from Japan that Russia's own interests—that is, the interests of the Russian people, not of the faction in temporary power is the ruling motive. With such a motive, the entry of Japan's forces into Russia will be as truly a protective movement as that of English soldiers into Belgium for the protection of the Belgians. The Japanese Premier a few weeks ago declared before the Japanese Parliament, "Japan holds herself responsible for peace in this part of the world." Japan's present proposal is the putting of this declaration into action.

It is not certain, as we write, that America's assent to this movement has been asked. The reports are that not a mere assent but a request from England and France will be forthcoming. If for any reason the United States is not formally called upon to act, it should at least of its own volition express its approval. And even if the feeling is one of disapproval, which we do not believe, the expression ought to be made at once, and it ought to be unqualifiedly No or Yes. The answer No might, and probably would, offend Japan; but it would at least indicate resolution, and would inspire respect. The answer Yes would also indicate strength, honor, and would inspire cordiality. A hesitating, delaying, watchful, waiting policy would indicate neither strength nor cordiality, and would inspire neither respect nor friendship.

NO TIME TO THINK PEACE

When a criminal is in deadly struggle alone with a policeman, there are only two ways in which the criminal can escape. One way is to overcome the policeman by superior strength or skill; the other is to divert the policeman's attention from the struggle and thus relax his strength and skill.

For nearly four years Germany has been struggling against the powers of law and order. She has failed so far to make good her escape with her booty by superior strength or skill. And now she is attempting by intrigue, suggestion, device, and propaganda to divert the attention of her antagonists from the struggle itself, and thus to gain her ends by relaxing the strength and skill of her antagonists.

What she can gain from these tactics is plain to all the world in the sorrowful experience of Russia.

Germany's most dangerous weapon is not her Zeppelin. That is obsolete. Not her submarine. That can be overcome. Not her machine-like army. That has been repeatedly hurled back by the living armies of freemen. Her most dangerous weapon is the propaganda of peace.

While with her hands she murders and despoils, with her voice she invites to parleys.

When liberty is in peril, there is threat of lasting disaster in the very word "peace."

Voices warning against such disaster are raised at this time

none too soon. Pointing to Russia as an example of what the present exigency is, Charles E. Hughes, in an address before St. David's Society of New York the other day, declared that the chief danger to America is psychological. "Let there not steal over this people," he said, "the palsying feeling that perhaps effort may not be needed. . . This is a serious moment. . . It is made plain to all of us by the events of the past days, the recent days, that this is not the time even to think of peace."

Such a warning as this of Mr. Hughes's needs to be heard up and down the land, among all the people; for Germany has set out to beat down, not merely armies, but nations. As General von Ludendorff has said, "Battles are no longer decisive. The people must be defeated."

This saying of one of our enemy's leaders is quoted in an article on our National Army by Gustavus Ohlinger in the "Atlantic Monthly" for March; for it serves to point the moral that Mr. Ohlinger draws from the Nation's experience during this past year. In simple, direct phrase he recounts the miracle of the making of the National Army. He gives unstinted praise to the people and their representatives who wrought this miracle, he records the people's and the Army's enthusiasm. But he

makes it clear that this initial miracle and this initial enthusiasm cannot carry us through. The Army must have in itself those "moral forces" which the French Infantry Drill Regulations describe as "the most powerful factors for success in war. These are the forces of cohesion, will, and courage. "These moral forces," says Mr. Ohlinger, "must finally come from the people. . . . The Army as a whole, and every soldier in its ranks, is in constant communication and in intimate touch with those in civil life. The opinions prevailing in the community are immediately reflected in the Army; if there be doubt at home there will inevitably be indecision in the camp. . . . The sense of duty among the people will produce a corresponding level in the discipline of the Army; their determination to wage the war to a successful conclusion will inspire the will to victory among the soldiers; if the people falter, the Army will weaken; it is true of this Army in a higher degree than of any army in the past, that its morale is a function of the public spirit of the Nation."

Mr. Ohlinger describes the forces that break up and weaken this public spirit in this country, particularly the German propaganda, and he points out how these forces have been at work in our National Army already. And, as he says, "those who entered the cantonments with enlightened patriotism and high purpose have had their spirits sorely tried by the shortcomings of the Government and the mood of the people at home.' Should criticism therefore be stifled? "On the contrary," answers Mr. Ohlinger, "every criticism and every inquiry prompted by interest in the welfare of the Army and its efficiency should be welcomed. A nation indifferent to its armies never won a victory."

...

It is not criticism, inquiry, investigation, instituted through demand for the reasons for apparent failures, but it is apathy, uncertainty, vacillation, the weakening of the will, that is the precursor to defeat. And this is Mr. Öhlinger's warning. "The Army is the cutting edge of the saber, the Government the blade and grip; but the force that must wield it is the people behind the Army. If they lack determination, the blade will not be driven home. If there is uncertainty of purpose, the edge will be turned and the blade broken."

What Mr. Hughes and Mr. Ohlinger have said need repetition. Others have seen the danger that they see. In a recent address in Boston Mr. James M. Beck spoke of "the splendid discipline that the American democracy has shown in this crisis;" but he noted with solicitude "its seeming indifference to the vital element of time." It is this, he said, that "makes the attitude of America still somewhat lacking in the heroic spirit, and makes America the Hamlet of nations, more intent upon talking about the war than working to win it." It is this element in the American character which makes America especially vulnerable to Germany's peace propaganda.

This is no new experience for this Nation. There was a time when the most potent enemy to the cause of the American Union was the Copperhead. So odious has that name become that we forget that the spirit of the Copperhead found lodgment in the

minds of thousands who were as respectable as the most respect able pacifists to-day.

Against any peace negotiated with the present masters of Germany, against any peace that is less than a peace of victory. America stands pledged. Evidence to that is overwhelming, as is shown by the quotations from President Wilson in Dr. Odell's article in this issue. There is a time to every purpose under the heaven; and this is the time not to talk or even think peace. but to set our minds and our hands to that pledged victory.

ESOP ON RUSSIA

About twenty-five hundred years ago a slave named Esop one of the masters of literature, wrote, or perhaps dictated. on editorial for this week on Russia.

At least he is reputed to have done so.
It is as follows:

.

between us?' said the Wolves to the Sheep. Those evil-dis "Why should there always be this implacable warfare posed Dogs have much to answer for. They always bark when ever we approach you, and attack us before we have done any harm. If you would only dismiss them from your heels, there might soon be treaties of peace between us.'

"The Sheep, poor silly creatures! were easily beguiled, and dismissed the Dogs. The Wolves destroyed the unguarded flock at their pleasure.

"Change not friends for foes."

WHAT IS TO BECOME OF OUR
RESERVOIR OF OIL?

Everybody, directly or indirectly, is concerned with the supply and the price of gasoline.

Particularly at this time of war the whole country is dependent upon the gasoline that will drive our armies' motor trucks, furnish power for our naval motor boats, and keep our airplanes flying.

And yet gasoline is only one of a large number of the products of petroleum which to-day we find indispensable. In spite of the use of gas and the fast-growing use of electricity for lighting, kerosene is still one of our indispensable sources of light, and it is an invaluable fuel. It is oil that is being substituted for coal as the propelling power of an increasing number of vessels, not only battle-ships and cruisers, but also merchantmen. Other products of petroleum will come to the mind of any one who begins to think about the things that are necessary to industry. commerce, and domestic life to-day.

Now this petroleum does not grow, like our crops. It is not periodically replenished, like our water supply. There is just so much of it in the ground, and what is taken out is not and cannot be replaced by any new supply. Other supplies may be dis covered where none are now supposed to exist. Substitutes for certain of the products of petroleum may be discovered or invented. Nevertheless petroleum is, and will for years remain. a great source of wealth and power which we cannot with impunity waste.

Are we wasting it?

There is no doubt that we are culpably, criminally.

This energy which Providence has stored in the ground to carry us from one place to another, to transport our goods, to draw the farmers' plowshares through the soil, to pump water, to send our boats across the seas and up and down our waterways. and to enable us to master the air-this energy we are dissi pating with prodigal negligence.

Every quart of petroleum that is thrown away or spoiled is lost to us and to our heirs forever. And yet to-day we allow not only quarts, but thousands and millions of gallons, to be de stroyed or to be irrevocably locked up in the inaccessible vaults of the earth. It has been estimated by the State Mineralogist's office of California that one-quarter of the value of all the oil produced in that great oil-bearing State is lost through evapo ration alone. In some fields the loss of stored oil through burning amounts to five per cent. In many fields the methods adopted for extracting the oil from the ground are such that,

according to estimates of the Bureau of Mines, from twenty-five to eighty-five per cent of all the oil in those fields will be left underground under conditions that make it impracticable in the future to recover it.

In view of these facts, there seems to be one superlative danger to our oil resources. That is not the danger of monopoly. It is the danger of waste.

If the oil is not wasted, but is drawn from the ground only as it is needed, and is taken care of as it is drawn out and distributed, and then falls into the hands of a monopoly, the injury to the public may be very great; but it is curable, for the monopoly can be dealt with. Even if it proves impossible to get rid of an oil monopoly, the monopoly can be transferred to the Government itself; that is, all the people may own the monopoly. But if the oil is drawn out in such a way that it cannot be properly stored, but is allowed to run away, to evapocate, and to burn, and if the great oil reservoirs themselves are spoiled as reservoirs for oil, so that they cannot in the future be drawn upon, then it does not matter whether we have a monopoly or not, for we will have lost, to the extent of our waste, the oil itself.

In any legislation, therefore, with reference to our oil resources the first consideration should plainly be the prevention of waste.

There are now, and there have been for three or four years, before Congress two bills to regulate the production of oil on Government lands. One of them, known, from the name of its sponsor in the House of Representatives, as the Ferris Bill, is now under consideration by the House. It embodies a sound principle which the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Lane (in common with a great many others who believe that National resources should be conserved with chief regard not to private but to public interest), holds to be of great importance. This principle is that such resources should, as a rule, remain the property of the public, and that there should pass to the individual only a limited right for developing them, for which the individual should pay. This is known as the Leasing System. It has been the subject of long debate, and it would undoubtedly be a decided advantage, other things being equal, to have this principle acknowledged as a policy of the Government by having it embodied in law.

This principle, however, is not the only thing, or even the main thing, to be established by oil legislation. The main thing is to prevent waste. If the Leasing System is adopted under a form of legislation which permits or encourages waste, the authority of the Government and the theoretical rights of the people will be purchased at an exorbitant price, to be paid in thousands and millions of gallons of an indispensable and irreplaceable form of wealth and power.

There are reasons for believing that certain provisions in the Ferris Bill will not only permit but actually encourage waste. Indeed, it is believed by some students of the bill that not the Leasing System itself, but the conditions under which this bill establishes the Leasing System, will cause greater waste than the old and superseded conditions under which there was no regulation at all.

To understand how this may be, some explanation of the way in which oil is obtained is perhaps necessary.

Some time in the early nineteenth century people in drilling to find salt pumped up with the salt water what was known as "rock oil." They had to get rid of this in order to use the salt; so they stored the salt water in cisterns, let the oil rise to the top, and then allowed it to run off into the streams. Some of the salt wells had to be abandoned because there was so much oil in them. It was found later that this oil was an exceedingly valuable substance. It was first used, according to Ida Tarbell's "History of the Standard Oil Company," as a medicine "three teaspoonfuls three times a day." Later, when it was found that this oil was a valuable illuminant, men began drilling into the ground to get the oil. After a while they found that two oil wells near to one another drew upon the same source of supply. So when one man 66 struck oil" other men were likely to rush to the neighborhood and put down wells as near as they were able to do so. Lands which had been apparently of little value thus grew to be very valuable, and men who bought such lands in the early days often grew to be rich. Thus oil lands fell into

private hands in various parts of the country. Then oil was discovered on public lands of the West, and prospectors went out and, like mining prospectors, tried their luck. Those who had good fortune, of course, put in the oil wells as fast as they could and started taking out their oil before others could get to the ground. Then arose the question of storing their oil. The safest place to store the oil was, of course, under the ground in the natural reservoirs, for there it could not be set afire or flow away. but as long as it was left there others might come and take it out; so the successful prospector would get it out as fast as he could and store it in such receptacles as he could devise and construct. Of course, stored in this way the oil was subject to accident and to evaporation. Meanwhile this oil producer would have to arrange to have his oil transported and refined. With out such transportation and without a refinery his oil was of no use to him or to anybody else. The great profits in the oil industry have been in transporting and refining the oil already produced; but the waste has occurred in the methods of getting it from the ground and in storing it.

It is in order to protect the public rights in oil beneath the public lands that oil legislation is needed.

It is these lands that are affected by the Ferris Bill.

It is provided in this bill that a person who wants to pros pect for oil on Government lands may, if otherwise qualified receive from the Secretary of the Interior a permit to prospect on not more than 2,560 acres, and that upon discovering oil or gas he may receive a patent to a quarter of this land, namely, not to exceed 640 acres, and under some circumstances not to exceed 160 acres; that a person who desires to produce oil from Government lands not patented may, if he succeeds in competitive bidding, lease such oil lands, but in no case can he lease more than 640 acres ; that no oil producer shall have more than a tenth interest in any agency for the sale or resale (that means too, of course, for the refining) of oil. When the land is patented, of course the right to take oil from it is a perma nent right; when the land is leased, the right continues for a period of twenty years, with the right of renewal thereafter at ten-year intervals. There are provisions concerning the rate of payment for leases; concerning the "reasonable precautions to be taken to prevent waste and injury to oil sands or oil-bear ing strata; concerning the distance from the boundary of any trac. within which it is forbidden to drive a well, etc.

Three objections made in the public interest to these provisions

are:

1. Regulations for the control of oil production in patented lands are very difficult to enforce. The bill, as it stands, makes it possible for oil lands to pass into perpetual private ownership 2. The amount of acreage allowed to each person is, it is argued, so small that in order to make any profit he must draw from his wells as much oil as he can and as fast as he can. A "test well costs from twenty-five thousand to one hundred thousand dollars. In one field the average cost of oil or gas wells is forty thousand dollars. In order to justify the expenditure of such an amount of money, a man must get all the oil that he can and get it before his neighbor gets it from the same source that is, if others are allowed to come close enough to him to get at the same oil supply and if he is allowed only a limited amount of acreage from which he can get oil. A result of small acreage. therefore, is to put a premium on quick production rather than careful production. Excessive competition in oil production is wasteful. The bill, it is argued, will inevitably invite this excessive competition.

3. At the same time that the bill encourages wasteful com petition in the producing of oil, it is argued, it will fortify and intrench monopoly in the transportation and refining of oil. By insisting that no producer shall have more than a very limited acreage and that he shall not himself engage, except in a most limited way, in refining oil, such a bill seems to enforce by law the very conditions which monopoly finds most favorable, because it handicaps the only competitors which a monopoly in oil is likely to encounter.

If the objection to this bill were wholly because it favored monopoly, the objection would not be insuperable. The remedy could be taken at any time by the simple process of transferring the monopoly to the Government. The really insuperable ob jections are that the bill permits oil resources to pass permanently