Page images
PDF
EPUB

enough, seems to have shifted his theme from this to the story of a woman who can find no man worthy to be greatly loved. Riccio, Darnley, Bothwell-there are these three to choose from, and this is her measure of the choice: "Riccio sings, yes, ravishingly. And no more. Darnley cannot sing even, and he's my husband. Just a petulance-one cannot even be sorry for it. How he hates Riccio I wish David were better worth hating. That would be something. And Bothwell wants to take me with a swagger. It's a good swagger, but that's the end of it. I think he will take me yet, the odds against him are pitiful enough. But it's a barren stock of lovers. . . . I, who could have made the greatest greater."

The contemptible Darnley, the suave and timorous Riccio, and the bold Bothwell are shown forth in the act which follows with a touch which makes these mordant words of the Queen seem, if anything, too kind. Darnley, who sings gross songs under the window of the Queen who is his wife; Riccio, who mars the tragedy of his death with his whining; and Bothwell, who knows himself that his love is a thing of passion without endurance or depth; none of these does the Queen love as the wife of the young man in the prologue is pictured as caring for her husband and another. The tragedy of Drinkwater's Mary is not that she is prevented from sharing her love, but that there is no one to whom she can give it all.

The play ends with the murder of Riccio outside the door of the Queen's chamber and the vow of the Queen that the reckoning for the death of this "fantastic nothing" "shall be as though for a great lover." She is left alone in her-room singing to herself a song she has made:

Though brighter wit I had than these,
Their cunning brought me down,
But Mary's love story shall please
Better than their renown.

[graphic][merged small]

Not Riccio nor Darnley knew

Nor Bothwell how to find This Mary's best magnificence Of the great lover's mind.

From a distance come the voices of the two figures of the prologue, the voice of the younger man crying, "What does a dead queen know about me?" and Mary answers again, "Boy, I can tell you everything."

There are power and dignity in the character of Mary Stuart as John Drinkwater paints her. There are moments in the play when, aided by the art of Clare Eames, this personification of the Scottish queen is touched with the

vitality of a Shakespearean character. The language of the play is thoroughly worthy of the situation which it shadows forth. Yet the production as a whole fails to satisfy as "Abraham Lincoln" satisfied. The elimination of the prologue and the epilogue and the completion of the fragmentary tragedy of Mary's life by a portrayal of the death of Darnley, her relations with Bothwell, and her mighty conflict with the great Queen who gave her name to an age of English history may not be a task which Mr. Drinkwater would care to undertake, but is a task which we would be grateful to him for attempting.

D

THE COLOMBIAN TREATY

EMOCRATIC, reactionary Republican, and pacifist papers welcome the passage of the Colombian Treaty.

Democratic opinion is voiced by the New York "World" and the Brooklyn "Daily Eagle." The first declares that it is "conceded in principle that the United States owed the South American Republic substantial compensation for the taking of Panama in defiance of solemn treaty obligations" and as "a primary condition provided the payment of $25,000,000 to Colombia." The "Eagle" asserts that "the Senate's ratification of

A POLL OF THE PRESS

the Colombian Treaty is an act of justice tardily performed. . . . With inexcusable delay, but yet with finality, . . . we have repaired a wrong, so far as the payment of money can repair it. . . . We congratulate President Harding upon his courage in reviving Mr. Wilson's policy."

The Buffalo, New York, "Commercial" gives the view-point of the Republican leaders who put the treaty through the Senate:

The country will experience a general feeling of relief over the ratification of the treaty with the Republic

of Colombia for a $25,000,000 indemnity growing out of the partition of Panama. . . . The amount, so far as the ability of the United States to pay is concerned, is insignificant. The misunderstandings that it clears up were of a character likely to imperil the whole Central and South American policy of the Harding Administration. . . .

It was all right to say that approval of this pact would be an insult to the memory of President Roosevelt so long as there was the clause in it expressing "regret" to Colombia for the loss of Panama. But that clause in the treaty was elini

nated, and only by implication could it be argued that we made any tender of regret for the secession of the Panamans.

Then there was another underlying reason of a decidedly practical character for approving this treaty-one which was perhaps not so much in evidence when the treaty was put before the Senate by President Wilson in 1914, but which now has become one of the first importanceand that is the assistance it will give the United States in the world-wide hunt for oil. There are vast oil fields in Colombia, which should be developed by us. But with this treaty rejected concessions of the kind desired would never be given to American capital, and it would be humiliating indeed to see them given to Great Britain.

Against these very practical reasons urged by the proponents of the treaty the opposition naturally weakened. Whereas a few years ago many of the strongest friends of the late President Roosevelt-men like Lodge, Fall, and McCumber-were against ratification, to-day they appeared as its strongest champions, in and out of the Senate.

The New York "Evening Post" rejoices as follows: "Gratification over the vote in the Senate upon the treaty with Colombia is enhanced by two circumstances: the promptness with which the Senate acted upon President Harding's recommendation and the size of the majority. ... It is the first important act of the new Administration, if by Administration we mean to include the Capitol as well as the White House. It was the subject of the first special Message by President Harding, who thus put his prestige to the test upon the question of whether we should or should not take the step which alone could restore us to the confidence of Central and South America."

An independent Democratic paper, the New York "Times," thus pays its respects to the victors:

Voting to ratify the Colombian treaty yesterday meant a severe intellectual and moral strain for many Republican Senators. They had to approve what they had vehemently and virtuously condemned four years ago. And they had to find arguments for their change of front. This was in some ways harder than the change itself. . . .

It certainly would seem that Mr. Lodge had in 1917 occupied ground from which he could not withdraw his troops without exposing them to destruction. He had delivered himself against the Colombian treaty with great moral earnestness. "Any friendship," he said, "which is bought is worthless." This is especially the case when it is "under threats which, when successful, breed contempt in the mind of the seller and a sense of bitter dislike and humiliation in that of the buyer." And the Massachusetts Senator made short work of the plea that the payment of $25,000,000 to Colombia would be anything but a "plea of guilty." "No other construction can or will be placed by the world on our action."

"We cannot afford to answer a blackmail demand." But a masterly leader to the rear like Mr. Lodge had little difficulty in getting away from all this. He invited the Senate and the country to look at "the larger aspects of the question." All of these could not be seen four years ago. There were considerations of "international amity" to be dwelt upon to-day; there was the matter of trade, to which we could not be blind, and had Senators duly weighed the vital necessity of oil and were they aware that Colombia contained vast and unexploited deposits to which Americans held claims and concessions only waiting on the ratification of the treaty? Moreover, Colombia was "the only South American state which has both an Atlantic and a Pacific coast, and on those coasts are good harbors capable of large development."

Naturally, other Democratic papers also throughout the country cannot resist paying their sarcastic respects to the Republican turn-coat Senators, while opposing their action. Nor can Republican papers whose editors dare think for themselves refrain. For instance, the New York "Tribune" referred to those "who would screen the transaction, saying that it is an act of largess to quiet the Colombians though they have no just claim." Another New York paper speaks as follows:

It is a source of immeasurable astonishment to the New York "Herald" that there should be, by Republican initiative both in the White House and in the Senate, a revival of this proposal to duplicate to Colombia the legitimate indemnity which Colombia asked for nearly twenty years ago and then rejected, and which consequently and properly went to Panama, its rightful recipient; and not only to duplicate that huge grant already once paid but to increase it one hundred and fifty per cent. . . . This newspaper cannot comprehend the position of Senator Lodge, for example, who now advocates the payment to Colombia invited by President Harding: the same payment which, when proposed by President Wilson, was denounced as blackmail. . . . If the measure was blackmail then, it is blackmail now. ... Such, unquestionably, is not the statesmanship of justice. It is the statesmanship of expediency. At the expense of Roosevelt's fame for honest dealing, the New York "Herald" is by no means prepared to believe that the implied confession and attempted purchase of friendship will have the effect upon Latin-American sentiment which the promoters of the experiment profess to expect.

Doubtless with reference to the report that not half a dozen Republican Senators really favored the treaty, the "Herald" adds: "In putting through the Colombian treaty the Republican Senate committed itself to a grand piece of mystery legislation. In this mystery business it looks as if we already had, in the new Administration, a touch of Wilsonian autocracy. But this isn't really the case. Instead it is only the steam-rolled execution of a close corporation machine."

The word "oil" apparently explains the mystery, as indeed the Buffalo "Commercial" indicated. The Chicago "Tribune" (Rep.) is more specific:

Secretary Fall says that the oil in Colombia is reason for bribing that Latin Government to be good-natured and obliging. The United States, he says, is getting the worst of it because it does not back its oil searchers and producers as the British back their own and that, in consequence, we shall be run out of many wonderful oil fields.

We want oil. We want to develop every possible opportunity and every possible field. We particularly do not want to overlook or neglect fields and opportunities in our own sphere. The oil of the future may contain the supremacy of the future.

What we do not see is the relevancy of the $25,000,000 payment to Colombia to the oil resources of Colombia. We can see its relevancy to the Panama Canal and we can see how it implies our apology for digging the Canal.

The "Tribune" refuses to follow any Administration in making such an apology by implication. We do not believe in giving any money to any Colombian government at any time as payment for the building of the Canal. There would be more sense, as Senator Johnson remarks, in giving it to our own unemployed, to our veterans, to disabled soldiers, to Americans who have done something for the American Government.

If the $25,000,000 will get something for the United States, let a treaty be formulated which will set forth the considerations in the bond.

"If the money is actually intended as an inducement to Colombia to grant oil concessions to Americans and not to confiscate their property," declares the Portland "Oregonian" (Rep.), "that should be stated in black and white, but it should be done by a separate treaty, in order that oil and the Canal may be kept apart."

As to the Panama Canal, if we wronged Colombia, we ought, in the “Oregonian's" opinion, "to restore what we took, not pay hush money." Furthermore, "If we did right, we ought to pay nothing, for such payment would set a precedent for an endless series of like demands. Omission of the apology does not relieve the payment of the taint of blackmail. The United States grants valuable concessions on the Canal and agrees to pay $25,000,000 to boot without specifying for what it is paid. The plain inference is that it has something to do with the Canal and Panama, for nothing else is mentioned in the amended treaty."

"The 'Bee' has opposed this treaty from the start," the principal paper in Omaha records. "If any wrong was done to Colombia," it says, "it should have been adjusted long ago; if we owe that country anything, we ought to pay it. . . . Whatever the outcome, the relations of our Government with all others should rest on a foundation of fair and honorable dealings, not on the uncertainty of bargains such as seems to be suggested by Secretary Fall. Pinckney's

patriotic dictum, 'Millions for defense, not a cent for tribute,' ought to be remembered now."

The conclusion of the whole matter, as viewed by many people, is thus stated by the Kansas City "Star" (Rep.):

In its first important move the Harding Administration has made an exceedingly bad impression on the country. The Colombian treaty is simply a sale of National honor for

T

[blocks in formation]

CANADIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS

HERE is nothing so dead as a dead slogan.

Take, for instance, the slogan which did such yeoman service in Canada in 1911-"No truck or trade with the Yankees." He would be a rash individual indeed who would seek to rehabilitate that battle-cry in Canada to-day-not that there are not some politicians, and others, who would make the attempt quickly enough if they thought there was a chance that the public could be hoodwinked by it again; in fact, these persons hailed with delight the recent agitation in the United States which resulted in the Fordney Bill, but there was not much response throughout the country.

On the other hand, the two political parties which are likely to return the largest groups to the next Parliamentthe Liberals and the National Progressives (Agrarian)—each have as a plank in their political platform, "Reciprocity with the United States."

It was a Government preponderantly Conservative, and headed by Sir Robert Borden-who attained power in 1911 by means of the cry of "No truck or trade with the Yankees"-which last year provided for the establishment at Washington of a Canadian Minister Plenipotentiary. The appointment has not actually been made up to the time of Ewriting, but a Minister of the Government in March of this year, in answer to a question in the House of Commons, stated that the appointment would be made when a suitable man had been Found for the post.

In the year 1920 Canada spent in the United States approximately $925,000,000. In the same year the United States spent $600,000,000 in Canada. Canada is Uncle Sam's second-best customer. The United States is Canada's best customer.

In connection with Canada's trade with the United States, the view expressed by the Hon. T. A. Crerar, leader of the National Progressive party, in the House of Commons on February 24 of this year is of interest as showing the trend of opinion in the Dominion. Mr. Crerar said, in part:

There is, however, one other criticism that I have to make, in the most friendly way, of the Minister of Trade and Commerce [Sir George Foster], and that is that the Department of Trade and Commerce is not at the present time discharging its

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE

duty in respect to the development of trade with our great neighbor to the south. What are the conditions? The United States Government has to-day in Canada over one hundred consuls, the great majority of these being in reality trade agents. You find them scattered over this country from the Pacific to the Atlantic. What are they doing? They are, in their way, quite properly, placing with prospective Canadian customers the advantages of trading with and buying from firms in the United States. We have agents abroad; but where do we find them? We have a trade agent in the Argentine Republic; we have one in Australia; we have one in Brazil; we have trade representatives in China; we have them in New Zealand, in Italy, in France, in Holland, and in South Africa; but we have not one in the United States. I would suggest, I hope in a spirit of constructiveness, the need, the advisability, of the Department over which my right honorable friend presides getting busy in this direction. We have our greatest customers to the south. More than one-half of the trade of Canada is done with the United States, and in that direction lies the best opportunity we have in the near years approaching for the development and extension of our trade.

Mr. Crerar is the President of the great United Grain Growers, Limited, the largest co-operative farmers' organi zation in the world. He was Minister of Agriculture in the Union Government during the war, but resigned in 1919 because he did not agree with the fiscal policy of the Government. He is the asknowledged leader of the organized farmers of Canada, comprising practically every province in the Dominion. It is conceded in political circles on all sides that the party which he leads will hold the balance of power after the next election. In view of all these facts, his opinion carries with it much weight.

While Canada does not maintain a single trade representative in the United States, a publicity bureau has been maintained in New York under the recent direction of Colonel J. A. Cooper. Speaking at a Canadian Club banquet in New York on March 7, Colonel Cooper stated that he had recommended to the Canadian Government the appointment in the United States of an equal number of trade representatives to that maintained by the latter coun

try in Canada. His experience of fifteen months in the United States had shown him the advisability of such a course. At first glance, it would appear strange that Canada should apparently neglect such a rich field in favor of Rumania and Greece, where the money has had to be advanced by the Canadian Government before orders were forthcomingor at least before the goods could be paid for. The explanation is simple: Sir George Foster, who heads the Department of Trade and Commerce, is one of the few men in Canada who have remained true to the old slogan of 1911.

Circumstances, however, have played havoc with the plans of 1911. A great cataclysm has shaken the world. It had its origin in the age-long rivalries and imperialisms of Europe. Canada, as an outpost of a European country, was quickly engulfed - some people, when they consider the national debt of over two and a quarter billions of dollars, are inclined to think the word "submerged" is more suitable. The conviction is slowly crystallizing in the minds of vast numbers of Canadians that the destiny of this country lies in the Western Hemisphere; that Canada's most natural allies are on this continent; and that a community of interest is the best safeguard for the future. This last exists beyond question between Canada and the United States.

There is, however, no sentiment in Canada for annexation-there never has been any of much extent. The Canadian people believe that there is room on this North American continent for two great nations; but they also believe that close co-operation is not inconsistent with national independence.

Of course there are many Imperialists in Canada who view with alarm any move towards closer business, or other, relations with any country other than Great Britain. There will likely always be a very strong sentimental tie between Canada and Great Britain; but propinquity and mutual interests are probably the stronger bonds. Canada now claims to be an independent nationstill, of course, under the British King but free to choose her own path and her own goal.

Failing some unforeseen calamity, the slogan of 1911 is about as inanimate in Canada as a last year's bird's-nest.

D. M. LE BOURDAIS,

[graphic][merged small]

PRESIDENT HARDING HELPS THE BOYS TO RAISE FUNDS FOR A SWIMMING POOL
President Harding exhibited his genius as a "good mixer" when he met a number of boys who called
on him at the White House to secure his help in raising funds for a swimming pool fund. Memories
of the "old swimmin' hole" of his boyhood days at Caledonia, Ohio, helped on the sale of the tickets
which the lad at the President's right brought with him when he called to enlist the aid of the
Nation's head

[graphic][ocr errors][merged small]

A GROUP OF FRENCH ATHLETES ARRIVING IN AMERICA TO COMPETE
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA GAMES

These young men will take part in the International Relay Race. Their names are: Front row, left
to right: M. Delvart, R. Goullioux, J. Seurin, R. Biget. Back row, left to right: G. Fery, and R.
de Leliva, the coach

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Here are three possible contenders for the trophy won by the Gloucester schooner Esperanto last year. This is an international trophy, oper only to fishing-vessels which have spent at least one season actively fishing on the Banks. There will be no postponing these races, even i there happens to be more than a capful of wind

« PreviousContinue »