the faction which happened to be in possession of the capital. It has pursued for over a year a policy of watchful waiting. At length this faction, believing our patience to be the result of feebleness and fear, has insulted our Nation and refused to make the demanded apology. The incident at Tampico was in itself insignificant. So in itself is an electric spark insignificant; but this electric spark has touched the accumulating indignation of the American people. Forbearance has ceased to be a virtue. No apology which Huerta can now make will satisfy them. They will not be satisfied until anarchy is ended, a just government is established, order is restored, and life and property are secure in Mexico.

It is our duty to protect our fellow-citizens who reside in that bandit-ridden country. It is true that America might years ago have notified all Americans that if they left their own territory they left at their own risk. It might have refused to protect American seamen from impressment by Great Britain. It might have refused to protect American ships from Mediterranean pirates. It might have thought to protect itself from war by cowardice. But that has never been its policy. It has never been the policy of any civilized nation. Our citizens in great numbers have gone into Mexico to develop its resources and work in its industries, under the implied assurance of our protection. It is impossible for us now, without dishonor, to leave them to be plundered, exiled, and murdered as they have been by the score.

We have warned off foreign nations from interference with nations on this side of the Atlantic. We have made it clear that any war on our sister republics would be regarded as an act unfriendly to us. We have made it clear to them that their interference to protect their own citizens in Mexico would incur our hostility. We cannot say to Eng land, You shall not protect Englishmen in Mexico and we will not. We might half a century ago have abandoned the Monroe Doctrine. We might have allowed Maximilian to establish a monarchy in Mexico and left England to demand the protection of her citizens from Maximilian-and his sponsor, France. But this we did not do. The foreigners who have settled in Mexico have settled there under our implied obligation to furnish them the protection which we insisted their own Governments should not furnish. Now that our obligation is brought home to us by the persistent violation of their rights,

we cannot with honor, or indeed with safety, cavalierly refuse to recognize and fulfill that obligation.

The great mass of the Mexican people are naturally peaceful. They are too peaceful. It is because they are not fighters that they are plundered, sometimes under the form of law, sometimes by flagrant and undisguised lawlessness. It is true that we are not going to make war against the people of Mexico. If we make war at all, it will be for the people of Mexico; it will be to protect the industrious residents, native and foreign, against men whose sole industry is that of the bandit. It is true that intervention by one nation in the affairs of another nation should be undertaken only in case of dire necessity. But sometimes it ought to be undertaken. Non-intervention is the rule, but is not a universal rule. The European Powers ought to have intervened to prevent the massacres of the Armenians in Turkey. England did right to interfere to prevent monstrous cruelty by Belgians in the Congo.

The wrongs to our own citizens, to the citizens of other nations, and to the Mexicans themselves clamor to us for help. We have preserved the policy of watchful waiting too long. We go to Mexico not to avenge an insult, but to fulfill a duty too long put off.

There are two views of our duty in the present situation, which are presented in strong contrast by the respective utterances of President Wilson and Senator Lodge.

Says President Wilson at the conclusion of his Message :

I, therefore, come to ask your approval that I should use the armed forces of the United States in such ways and to such an extent as may be necessary to obtain from General Huerta and his adherents the fullest recognition of the rights and dignity of the United States, even amid distressing conditions now unhappily obtaining in Mexico.

In contrast with this is the view of Senator Lodge as embodied in his resolution presented to the Senate:

Resolved, That the state of unrestrained violence and anarchy which exists in Mexico, the number of unchecked and unpunished murders of American citizens and the spoliation of their property in that country, the impossibility of securing protection or redress by diplomatic methods in the absence of lawful and effective authority, the inability of Mexico to discharge its international obligations, the unprovoked

indignities inflicted upon the flag and the uniform of the United States by the armed forces in occupation of large parts of Mexican territory, have become intolerable.

That the self-respect and dignity of the United States, and the duties to protect its citizens and its international rights, require that such a course be followed in Mexico by our Government as to compel respect and observance of its rights.

The Outlook thinks the President's view wholly inadequate. It is impossible for Huerta and his adherents adequately to recognize our rights and duties to the state of Mexico. His faction is master only in onehalf of the state. His mastery there is by no means undisputed. If he were to make all amends in his power, his delayed apology would not remove the cause for our action. If he were to surrender to the United States authorities, or were to flee the country, our duty would not be fulfilled. We should still

have to do whatever may be necessary to put a stop to the violence and anarchy which exists in Mexico, to prevent a continuance of the murders of American and foreign residents and the spoliation of their property, and to secure a government under which order would be preserved and the fundamental rights of peaceable, industrial citizens, whether foreigh or native, would be reasonably safeguarded.

There is no reason to fear that we shall bring upon ourselves a repetition of England's problem in Ireland, or Germany's problem in Alsace-Lorraine, or Russia's prob lem in Finland. We are not undertaking to conquer Mexico as the English conquered Ireland, or to annex Mexico as the Germans annexed Alsace-Lorraine, or to Americanize Mexico as the Russians are attempting to Russianize Finland. Nor are we under the illusion that as soon as we have occupied the capital we can hand over to the people selfgovernment and then withdraw. The President himself has well said that "self-government is not a thing that can be given to any people, because it is a form of character and not a form of constitution. No people can be given the self-control of maturity."

We do not underestimate the difficulties of the undertaking laid upon the American people. It would be difficult to overestimate those difficulties. It is true that the military campaign may be brief. With energy in the commanderin-chief it cannot take long to overthrow such vestige of government as Huerta now posBut this will not be the end. Our

sesses.

relation to Mexico will not be in the future what it has been in the past. We cannot enter that state for the purpose of protecting the lives and property of American and foreign residents and of peaceable Mexicans and leave our relation to Mexico unchanged. Our fulfillment of present duties will inevitably create new duties. Whether our relation to Mexico becomes like that of England to Egypt, or like that of the United States to Cuba, or a relation somewhere between those two, having undertaken to secure the rights of humanity, we cannot lay down our task until those rights are secured, until there has been established in that land that self-government which, to quote the President again, "follows upon the long discipline which gives a people self-possession, self-mastery, the habit of order and peace, and common counsel, and reverence for law which will not fail when they themselves become the makers of law.”1

Has America as a democracy sufficient moral character and sufficient efficiency to administer justly and successfully a military protectorate? For that is what the Mexican intervention portends. In Egypt, British occupation has meant justice, prosperity, and social welfare for the Egyptians, and peace and welfare for the civilized world. In the Philippines, American occupation has meant that and more; it has meant real and hopeful progress in the education of a people for self-government. To do this in some form, or to aid the Mexicans in doing this under our protection, is the duty which lies before us. We shall not lay aside our domestic problems in order to fulfill this duty. The maintenance of social justice in Mexico will inspire us to maintain social justice in Colorado. The preservation of law and order in Mexico will help us to preserve law and order in New York. We have been inspired in building our Catskill waterworks by our success in building the Panama Canal. Nevertheless, in adding to our domestic problems this problem of the pacification of Mexico. democracy is entering upon its most serious task since the Civil War closed fifty years ago. The Outlook believes that the history of the American people in the past justifies the faith that they have both the courage and the character to fulfill the duty which this new emergency in the National life lays upon them.

These quotations are from Dr. Woodrow Wilson's "Constitutional Government in the United States," 1908. pp. 52, 53.

THE RAILWAYS AND THE

COMMISSION

For several months the railways in a very large part of the United States-the part in which population and traffic are densesthave been seeking to secure the right to raise their freight rates. They cannot exercise that right without the permission of the InterState Commerce Commission. Upon the decision of that body depends in no small degree the course of business. No case that has come before it has illustrated more vividly the Commission's great administrative power.

There are two extreme views of that question. They are graphically presented in the two cartoons on another page. According to one, the railway is a beggared suppliant at the door of an arbitrary and unfeeling Government that has shown them little mercy; and all that they can do is to wait in privation with the hope of a few crumbs from the Government's table. According to the other view the railways are the rich and pampered beneficiary of the people's innocent indulgence, and their new demand is but the attempt to secure as a gift what they ought to be compelled to earn.

As in the case of all extreme views, neither of these is right; but each holds in an exaggerated form a measure of truth. On the one hand, it is true that the railways are now subject to Government control; they are no longer the almost sovereign power they once were, but are subordinate to the sovereignty of the Federal Government. On the other hand, the railways have in years past grown to their present estate under conditions which have, to say the least, not been conducive to economy, and which render it necessary for the Government to see, so far as possible, that railway management is hereafter economical, efficient, and regardful of public rights.

These two aspects of the question involve the Government in two duties. On the one hand, the Government is bound to do justice to the railways. The very fact that it has power to deny to the railways the right to raise their rates creates a corresponding obligation to consent to the increase if it is shown to be right. On the other hand, the Government must protect the public interest. When a private concern in a competitive business finds expenses increasing and profits diminishing, it cannot arbitrarily raise the price of products; for if it does, other concerns will

come into the field, and by better methods of production and more efficient management undersell it. Only after adopting economy and efficiency can such a concern raise its prices with impunity. Now, what competition does for the ordinary business the Government is called upon to do for the railways. That is why the Inter-State Commerce Commission has been hearing, on the one side, the railways' statements concerning diminishing profits, and, on the other side, statements concerning the possibility of greater economy and efficiency.

How stable and experienced a body of men it is by whom this question is to be decided can be judged from a brief statement concerning its membership. It represents the choice of four Presidents. The Chairman, James S. Harlan, of Illinois, was first appointed in 1906 by President Roosevelt; Judson C. Clements, of Georgia, was first appointed in 1892 by President Harrison; Edgar E. Clark, of Iowa, was first appointed in 1906 by President Roosevelt; Charles C. McChord, of Kentucky, and Balthasar H. Meyer, of Wisconsin, were appointed in 1910 by President Taft; Henry C. Hall, of Colorado, and Winthrop M. Daniels, of New Jersey, were appointed this year by President Wilson.

It is fortunate that the Nation has, to deal with this complex question, a Commission in whose impartiality it has confidence.

COUNT OKUMA AGAIN

PRIME MINISTER

The reappearance of Count Okuma as Prime Minister of Japan is dramatic in its significance. In his seventy-seventh year this veteran statesman preserves the intellectual vigor and energy of youth. He has more than once humorously expressed his expectation that he will live to be a hundred and twenty.

For years past Count Okuma has been a kind of general adviser to the Japanese people; a candid friend who has never hesitated to point out their mistakes or the mistakes of the Government whose position has been so secure in the interest and affection of the country that he has constituted a party by himself. To the visitor from the West he is perhaps the most interesting personality in the Japanese Empire. An Oriental by temperament, instinct, and training, he is a thoroughly modern man in his recognition of

modern conditions, his clear-sighted perceptions of what Japan must do in her selfdevelopment, and his strong sympathy with the movement for the greater authority of the people in determining the policies of the Government. He is of the Samurai class, whose ideals Dr. Nitobe has so beautifully interpreted in "Bushido," a book which ought to be read by every American as a revelation of a side of the Japanese character which very few Americans understand.

Count Okuma was born in the south, but he belongs to neither of the great clans which have furnished so many leaders to modern Japan. He is not in any sense a clan man ; the fact that he is outside the Satsuma and Choshu groups of leaders has given him a certain political isolation and has at the same time deepened his influence with the people of the country. His mother was a woman of notable character and intellect, for whom he has always shown a very beautiful devotion. His father was in command of the fortifications about Nagasaki when Commodore Perry entered the Bay of Tokyo. Count Okuma was then fifteen years old, and has therefore lived to see the entire modern development of his country.

When he was a young man, in the restoration period, his popular sympathies were already expressed. He strongly advocated the abolition of the old feudal system and the establishment of constitutionalism. When the Government was reorganized under the Emperor, he entered the Department of Foreign Affairs. From 1873 to 1888, first as ViceMinister and then as Minister, he managed the finances of the country. His failure to persuade the Government to introduce the representative system led to his resignation and to the formation of the Progressive party, the forerunner of the present National party. In 1888, the year preceding the promulgation of the Constitution, he became Minister of Foreign Affairs, and it fell to him to secure the revision of the old treaties which were made with the great Powers after the opening of the country and in which the Japanese were denied certain very important rights. In securing the revision and modification of these treaties he greatly advanced the position of Japan, and at the same time exposed himself to an animosity at home which expressed itself by an attempted assassination. A bomb was thrown into his carriage as he was approaching his office, and his life was saved only by the amputation of a leg. Ten

years later, in 1898, he became Prime Minister and organized a coalition Cabinet, adding to his duties those of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Since the fall of that Ministry he has maintained his position as the most influential public man in Japan outside the field of practical politics. The Outlook reported the extraordinary honor with which he was received on the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of Waseda University, which was his creation and of which he is President; an institution of learning which holds its place among the foremost in Japan, and in which freedom of teaching and of speech has been a cardinal maxim.

Count Okuma's acceptance of the Premiership is a striking evidence of the progress of the movement to place a larger share of the government of Japan in the hands of the Japanese people. In an interview of extraordinary interest, published in The Outlook last June, Count Okuma reviewed the modern history of Japan, pointed out the lines of its development, and gave a philosophical analysis of the evolution of modern Japan, with a very free criticism of its defects and faults. In that interview he said: The saving elements in Japan will be the development of popular life and of education. In public life that development will take the form of a fuller understanding of party government. . . . Our Constitution, unlike that of other countries, was conferred on us by our ruler, and progress of every kind has been initiated by the Government. Even the expression of public opinion through the press has been encouraged by the Government; while I was connected with the Government I assisted in the creation of half a dozen newspapers. Political parties were, and are still, largely recruited by people who served in the Government. In other words, in every department of social and political activity the initiative has thus far come always from the Government; but, thanks to its educative influence, the people are coming to know and feel their own power. The formation of political parties will hasten the education of the people, and through education alone can the general uplift of the nation fully express itself and secure for the country the most lasting results."

These are the words of a progressive statesman whose appearance at the head of the Japanese Ministry will give immense satisfaction to the country as marking the disappearance of clan government, against which the

popular feeling has been steadily growing for many years; and as a recognition of the greater part public opinion is to play in directing the policies of the country. Count Okuma understands his country, and has never been afraid to point out its defects and needs. He has emphasized the fact that the whole modern development of Japan has been forced upon her from without, and that what she needs more than anything else is the opportunity of inward growth, of adjusting her inward life to the great changes that have been made in her outward life.

Whether he succeeds or not as an administrator, he stands for the new order and the modern spirit. When the so-called anti-Japa

nese legislation in California had touched the sensitive Japanese to the quick and had awakened a deep feeling of resentment, Count Okuma called together a group of representative Japanese and Americans at his house, and in a brief but very striking speech told them that such difficulties between countries could be settled neither by diplomacy nor by law, but must be settled by religion. He spoke as a prophet at the summit of his years, with a great experience behind him; but he spoke also as a leader, not only of his people, but of that movement for international justice and friendship which, with occasional interruptions, steadily gains ground throughout the world.

A

MERICAN intervention in Mexico has been adversely criticised by many papers on the Continent of Europe; in Great Britain, however, it is by almost all papers commended.

Let us first consider the unfavorable criticisms. They are of the kind that appeared before the Spanish War. German adverse comment, for instance, is summed up by the Berlin" Post." It declares that "Germany has no reason to desire an American victory," because "the American Colossus will thereby grow still more gigantic and become more dangerous for us, economically, than it already is."

As to the history of our relations with Mexico, the "Post" charges that for many years we have increased our influence with our southern neighbor by both trickery and force, until "political aspirations have joined what were formerly only economic purposes." It even asserts that the United States was back of the downfall of both Diaz and Madero, and that "the comedy is about to become a tragedy, involving Mexico's struggle for freedom and independence."

As to Huerta, another Berlin paper, the "Tägliche Rundschau," blames President Wilson's refusal to recognize the man in Mexico City, thus making it impossible to obtain the money with which to restore order. Mr. Wilson's policy, declares the "Rundschau," has been one neither of realities nor of idealism, but merely of democratic doctrinairism."

Finally, the Socialist " Vorwärts" of Berlin

asserts. that the pretext for intervention in Mexico is trifling, and adds:

If the United States gains its end, the result will be that Mexico will become more than ever the domain of American trusts-the delectable result of the policy of a Democratic President who has always boasted so loudly of his opposition to capitalism.

Turning to Italy, one finds such a phrase as this in the well-known "Corriere della Sera" of Milan :

The policy of the United States towards Mexico has always been a policy of conquest, sometimes violent, sometimes insinuating, an army of cannon or an army of money, persevering, constant, with no concession and with no weakness. Into this policy America puts the same ability as into her business affairs; she has never experienced a check.

In French-speaking countries, too, one finds bias, even from the generally reliable Swiss paper the "Journal de Genève." We read:

Every Mexican government which has shown symptoms of independence has had Washington against it. . . . When Porfirio Diaz came to power, the United States Government waited three years before recognizing him-an analogous case to Huerta's. . . . And then Madero overthrew Diaz, with the certain help, so they say in Mexico, of the United States. This kind of play cannot always last. . . . Mr. Wilson is a sincere pacifist, opposed to all conquests; but will he resist the current which has long carried with it the American policy?

The Paris "Journal" says: "It is certain that, whatever happens, foreigners will be the