upon to meet foreign needs as have those of the United States." As ample supplies of petroleum have become necessary to our life and property, our Government "finds no alternative than the adoption of the principle of equally good opportunity, with the proviso that no foreign capital may operate in public lands unless its Government accords similar or like privileges to American citizens."

Dutch capital has enjoyed free access to our oil deposits. Why should not access to the oil on our public lands be denied to foreign Governments which refuse to allow our citizens to share in the development of the fields under their control?

"Equality of opportunity"-Secretary Hughes proposes to maintain that principle wherever possible. Exhibit I: Yap. Exhibit II: Djambi.

A PANAMA RECORD

HEODORE ROOSEVELT's greatest single

T constructive work was the building

of the Panama Canal. If he had wavered or weakened before Colombia's crooked scheming or faltered as physical difficulties arose, American failure might have followed French failure. The recent discussion on the history of our recognition of the Panama Canal has only emphasized the greatness of the undertaking..

And just at the time when the political and international questions have come to the front we have a report which shows the magnitude of the world's work that is done by the Panama Canal. The high record for tonnage of traffic through the Canal and also for tolls earned was made in March last. If we remember rightly, the first month of operation of the Canal, in 1914, yielded about $100,000. But now a monthly yield of over $1,000,000 has been made several times. The record of March was about $1,105,000, and the report of registered tonnage for the month was 1,417,220, while both in February and March over three hundred vessels passed through. The former troubles with landslide impediments have been done away with by engineering skill and hard labor.

More and more the Panama Canal is a great world asset; its special value to this country needs no demonstration.

last election the citizens of Vancouver returned her at the head of the poll. This was in itself a great compliment to the work which she had already done as a member of the British Columbian Provincial Parliament.

The nine provinces of Canada have each a separate Parliament and administration, with a Lieutenant-Governor appointed by the Governor-General of Canada at the head of the executive. branch of the provincial governments.

A correspondent of The Outlook in

Keystone

MRS. RALPH SMITH, MEMBER OF THE CABINET OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Vancouver writes to us that, "as a wife, mother, and widow, Mrs. Smith understands perhaps better than the mere male what legislation is necessary for the protection of the women and children of the provinces."

She has now been further honored by being given a seat in the Cabinet. She is at present "Minister without portfolio."

A SENATOR FREED

THE

HE United States Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Federal Court in which Senator New

berry, of Michigan, was found guilty of a conspiracy to violate the Federal Corrupt Practices Act during his Senatorial campaign. The offense with which Senator Newberry was charged was not one which of itself involved moral turpitude. He was not charged with bribery, which I would be a moral crime whether or not the statutes declared it so, but with spending more than the law allowed for purposes of publicity during a primary campaign.

The Supreme Court, in passing upon Senator Newberry's case, uttered two opinions: First, unanimously it reversed the convictions of Senator New

berry and his associates on the ground of error in the trial judge's instruction to the jury. Second, it declared that the specific clause of the law under which Senator Newberry was convicted was unconstitutional. In the latter case the Supreme Court divided five to four. The majority opinion (although we have not yet seen the complete text of the decision) appears to have been given on the ground that, while Congress had the power to regulate the manner of holding elections for Federal offices, it did not have the power to control party primaries or conventions for selection of candidates for Federal office.

This second decision eliminates the necessity for a retrial of Senator Newberry's case. Mr. Newberry's career has proved his patriotism and his ability as a public servant. It is a relief to know that he will not be required to pay a penalty the justice of which has at best been questionable under a law which in some of its provisions is certainly unreasonable and which has now been declared unconstitutional.

CONGRESS TO DECLARE PEACE

HE Knox Resolution has passed the Senate. It now goes to the House. If passed there, as expected, the President has promised to sign it.

The Senate vote was not wholly partisan. Several Democrats voted for it; and one Republican, Senator Nelson, of Minnesota, was paired against it, first, because, in his opinion, it failed to sustain the claims of France for reparation due, and, second, because it contained no provision intended to compel Germany to live up to her agreement to disarm.

The Resolution does three things:

(1) It declares the war between Germany and the United States at an end, thus conforming the legal situation to the fact.

(2) Property taken under the provision of the Alien Property Act it holds for final disposition by treaty with Germany.

(3) It does not follow the text of the Knox Resolution of a year ago, vetoed by President Wilson, in "not waiving" any of the rights to which we became entitled under the armistice or the Treaty of Versailles, but declares (in language suggestive of the present Secretary of State) that the United States reserves those "rights, powers, claims, privileges, indemnities, reparations, or advantages." We are thus still in a position to enforce our rights, and, as an agency of such enforcement, to keep our army in the Coblenz area.

We have never before ended a state of war by Congressional resolution. But it is argued that it may lawfully be so

ended, since the power to declare war implies the power to declare peace.

CAN THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS BE TAKEN OUT OF THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES?

THE

HE passage of the Knox Resolution did not attract as much attention as did the suggestion during its debate, by Mr. Lodge, that a treaty with Germany was all the more necessary because the Treaty of Versailles could not be amended to meet American requirements, it being practically impossible to separate the League of Nations from the rest. Senator Lenroot, on the contrary, thought that the League could be eliminated without destroying the Treaty, and asked if the sections on reparations, boundaries, and the right of occupation would remain after the League was taken out. Mr. Lodge admitted that they would, but added that to eliminate the League from the Treaty would require no less than seventy-two amendments. This is not surprising. It would not, however, necessarily prevent the adoption of the policy laid down by the President in his address of April 12 to Congress:

It would be idle to declare for separate treaties of peace with the Central Powers on the assumption that these alone would be adequate. . . . The wiser course would seem to be the acceptance of the confirmation of our rights and interests as already provided and to engage under the existing Treaty, assuming of course that this can be satisfactorily accomplished.

replaces the old Field Museum, at Jackson Park, once the Fine Arts Building of the World's Fair.

The collections for the World's Fair were so important that a permanent location was the result, made possible by Marshall Field's gift of a million dollars. Mr. Field died in 1906, leaving four million dollars for the erection of a permanent building and four millions for endowment.

The new Museum is, as the illustration indicates, a compact, massive, white marble structure. Its proportions make of it an artistic Ionic unit. It covers eleven acres.

The chief feature of the interior is the great nave, stretching backward from the main entrance and dividing the building from north to south. At right angles to the nave are the thirty exhibit halls on the two main floors. On the third floor the curators and assistants have their rooms. There are also a theater seating a thousand people, a lecture hall, and several small class-rooms. The library comprises over 70,000 volumes.

The exhibits represent an expenditure of more than a million dollars. Besides the departments of botany, zoology, geology, and anthropology, the Museum houses a public school extension exhibit. The finest exhibit of meteorites in the world is owned by the Field Museum. Also in this Museum was first established the method of mounting mammals instead of stuffing them. By this method a plaster cast is made of the animal in some natural position, and over this the skin is stretched. No bones are used, though hoofs and horns are retained. This method makes possible the perfect formation and natural

position of the animal, impossible by the old method of stuffing.

The site of the new Museum is more practical than that of the old building. It is accessible to every shopper or clerk with only an hour to spare at lunch time.

At present there is not only not a tree, but not even a blade of grass within a half-mile of the Museum. But every one who knows the people of Chicago will realize the wonderful possibilities always open to people of their enterprise.

AN "UNDESIRABLE CITIZEN" DEPARTS

THE

HERE were forty-six members of the Industrial Workers of the World who were sentenced to prison following conviction on charges of violating the Selective Service Law and the Espionage Act during the war. Among these men was "Big Bill" Haywood, formerly secre tary of the I. W. W. and its ablest organizer for the cause of revolution.

On the eve of entering upon his sentence of twenty years in the Federal prison at Leavenworth, Haywood jumped his bail and departed, it is be lieved, for Russia, where, it is said by some, he is expected to play an important part in propaganda work for the Lenine Government. Statements to this effect, however, have had no authentic

corroboration.

Haywood will be remembered not only for his work for the I. W. W., but also for the dramatic and bitter trial in 1907, at which he was charged, together with Moyer and Pettibone, with complicity in the murder of ex-Governor Steunenberg, of Idaho. The only direct evidence against Haywood offered at this trial was in the testimony of the self-confessed murderer Harry Orchard, and the jury released Haywood and his associates on the grounds that a reasonable doubt existed as to their guilt.

There can be no doubt, however, that Haywood and his fellow-defendants were guilty of enough to justify completely President Roosevelt's allusion to them

as "undesirable citizens." It was this phrase (which promptly entered into our National political vocabulary) that called forth from the gentle-hearted Eugene Debs the charge that President Roosevelt had condemned workingmen as murderers because they were objectionable to the trusts that controlled his Administration. Mr. Debs manifested his customary restraint by saying of President Roosevelt that "he uttered a lie as black and damnable, a calumny as foul and atrocious, as ever issued from a human throat." In a later statement President Roosevelt put Haywood and Debs in the same class and said that they "stand as representatives of those men who have done as much to discredit the labor movement as the worst speculative financiers or most unscrupulous employers of labor and debauchers of legislatures have done to discredit honest capitalists and fair-dealing business men. They stand as the representatives of those men who by their public utterances and manifestoes, by the utterances of the papers they control or inspire, and by the words and deeds of those associated with or subordinated to them habitually appear as guilty of incitement to or apology for bloodshed and violence. If that does not constitute undesirable citizenship, then there can never be any undesirable citizens."

The subsequent history of both Haywood and Debs have quite vindicated this statement.

NOME leaders in the movie world are alarmed because of two threats to their industry-we refrain advisedly from using the word art. One is a threat of foreign competition, and the other a threat of domestic control.

The fear of foreign competition has arisen from the recent importation of several films which have the right to use that once potent slogan "Made in Germany." These films have been so successful that there is talk of a tariff measure to protect American producers. To any one who has seen such German films as "Passion," "Deception," or "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" the explanation of the perturbation of our producers is obvious. The German film companies, despite some obvious shortcomings, seem to be guilty of employing directors who have ideas in their heads, and these directors have mastered the art of telling their stories logically, directly, and forcibly. Their actors somehow seem able to depend on acting to convey the ideas which the director wishes to convey. The films, compared with most American productions, are virtually captionless.

In none of the three films mentioned

twitching fingers, nor was there a single example of that murderous assault upon the imagination entitled "the flashback." In "Deception," in particular, there were half a dozen occasions which an American director would have seized upon with avidity as excuses for "flashbacks" to make the obvious more obvious. We sighed with relief each time one of these danger-points was safely passed.

Photographically, the German camera work is not the equal of the American standard, but in the presentation of their themes the German directors are very much the superiors of our own. Let us, by all means, refrain from putting a tariff upon foreign movies. Better yet, perhaps the Germans might be permitted to pay part of their reparation money in films rather than marks!

The second threat to our American film producers is contained in the growing demand for the censorship of films, a demand which has been caused by the flood of cheap, tawdry, and degrading films which have been put forth. The more responsible film companies are attempting to combat this demand by a plea to permit the industry to have a chance to clean its own house, a plea

which we may hope is based upon a genuine awakening to the real situation.

With a full appreciation of the provocation which has caused the demand for a censorship, it seems to us a demand which should not be granted. Every argument which can be made for a censorship of the movies is equally cogent in regard to every other form of public expression. Likewise every argument against censorship of speech and the press is equally valid against the censorship of the movies. If you censor movies, as some States are even now doing, you open the door to a general censorship which is contrary to every American tradition. If you do not censor the movies, the State still has the same opportunity for control which it has over the spoken and the written word.

The American and the British system is not to prescribe in advance what a man shall or shall not say. It is to permit him to say and write what he wishes and then to hold him responsible for the effect of his utterances. The American system is not to give to any authority the right to say in advance what may or may not be given the public. It is to throw our citizens upon their own responsibility and then to determine by due process in open court

whether or not they have misused that responsibility.

GO THOU AND DO LIKEWISE

MT

́IAMI UNIVERSITY has set an example well worth following. It has established a fellowship in creative art and has chosen as the first holder of this fellowship Mr. Percy MacKaye. Mr. MacKaye's only obligation is to devote himself to the work which pleases him best. He is not required to teach nor to take part in the details of University administration. He has been awarded the fellowship because Miami University believes that he has something definite to offer to American literature and that he ought to have a chance to do creative work free from financial worry. A similar scholarship has been given to Edgar Stillman Kelley, the composer, by The Western College. President Hughes, of Miami University, has said:

I believe there are between fifty and a hundred colleges and universities in the country which could finance a fellowship of from $2,500 to $10,000 out of their own budgets for a year or two, and I am convinced that such a fellowship fortunately started could be supported from private sources. The development of art has always appealed to the wealthy, and an institution that can secure a distinguished creative artist on such a fellowship could, I believe, after demonstrating the worthwhileness of the enterprise, find those among her friends who would gladly maintain it. The Miami plan deserves the compliment of imitation.

THE CHINESE FAMINE

W

E have kept our readers informed from time to time about the progress in China of that most terrible and inexorable form which death takes famine. As Mr. Malone, an American teacher in China, puts it in his Special Correspondence printed in this issue, it is not a question, Whom shall we save? but, Whom shall we let die? It seems to be difficult sometimes for Americans to appreciate that Chinese mothers and fathers love their children with the same kind of love which makes the American mother and father willing to sacrifice themselves for their children. It has always seemed to us when thinking of the so-called downtrodden races that the plea of Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice" is one of the most pathetic and the most arresting passages of English literature: "Hath not the Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, arms, dimensions, sense, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?" So we wonder, Hath not the China

man the same love for his child or for his mother that an American has? And what more terrible problem can be presented to a son and father who sees on the one side of him his child and on the other side of him his mother slowly dying of hunger? Which shall he save? That is the exact situation in some districts of northern China to-day.

Last January we published an article on the Chinese famine which quoted from the report on famine conditions by Mr. J. J. Underwood, of the Seattle "Times." This report, while unquestionably accurate in its general picture, was perhaps misleading in some details. Mr. Underwood said of the four provinces suffering from famine: "In all these provinces there is scarcely a girl from twelve to twenty years left. They have been sold into slavery and prostitution and deported." A trustworthy American correspondent in China takes exception to this statement. He says that, while there are too many cases in which the girl children are sold, it is unjust to say that all Chinese par

visited this refuge recently. Here are two Chinese girls running this refuge in a strange place, all by themselves, without any direct supervision. Surely China is making progress, especially the women of China.

Of the scores of students of Peking University and Indemnity College who have volunteered for relief work I want to mention one in particular, Mr. C. F. Woon, who probably more than any other has inspired his fellow-students to volunteer for famine relief. He has been out in the famine region himself, writing up the conditions and making strong appeals to his wealthy relatives and friends. He stayed with me on his way into the famine country, leaving this place on a cold morning before daylight, when the temperature was below zero, riding on a load of clothing for the famine sufferers. Do you call this "sitting placidly by"?

It is clear from this testimony that the Chinese are endeavoring to help themselves as well as they can. They certainly deserve all the help that the sympathetic, charitable, and fortunate in other parts of the world can give them.

themselves and their children from physical death. Mr. Underwood criticised the Chinese further by saying: "The rest of China, much of it blessed with abundant crops, sits placidly by superstitiously believing that the spirits intended the drought and famine as a means of regulating the overwhelming population of the land." Our correspondent in China says on this aspect of the question:

I am willing to admit that most of what Mr. Underwood has to say on this subject is all too true; and I would be the last one to defend the Peking Government or most Chinese officials on this point. But there are noble exceptions. Some of these noble exceptions will undoubtedly read your editorial, and I should have to blush with shame the next time I see them did I let this statement from an American newspaper reporter pass unchallenged. Does Mr. Underwood not know that the International Committees in the large cities of China which are raising funds for famine relief are mostly, if not all, Chinese and foreign, and that large contributions have been given by the Chinese themselves?

Our correspondent relates individual cases of Chinese governors and county officials who are doing fine and efficient relief work, raising money, establishing gruel kitchens, purchasing grain in Manchuria and shipping it into the famine districts, and organizing the starving into self-supporting groups. He reports that Chinese university students are doing notable relief work.

Two women students of Peking University are in Wangtu, where they are running a refuge for girls who had been sold or were in danger of being sold, but were rescued. I

W

HEN Germany, about a week be fore the first of May, offered to pay the Allies two hundred billion gold marks, a great many Americans blamed France for saying no. At first Germany's offer sounded very reasonable. The Allies had demanded two hundred and twenty-six billions, and Germany had apparently replied with a round two hundred. Twenty-six billions of anything sounds like a good deal; but out of two hundred and twenty-six it is a rather small proportion-certainly of itself not worth a war. Why, it was asked, could not France waive her rights to this extent for the sake of a common peace? Many Americans found in France's refusal a confirmation of their suspicion that France was looking for something else besides reparation.

In part these Americans are right. Important as it is to France that Germany should pay as much as she can to repair the damage she wantonly and wickedly did in her effort to cripple her neighbor, it is still more important to France that Germany should be kept at a safe distance and be rendered incapable of aggression. But to suspect the French people as a whole, or the French Government, of attempting to dominate Europe because France does not acquiesce in the offers that Germany makes and because she wants some more tangible safeguards than paper promises is just what Germany wants our people to do and is what she will find our people will refuse to do when they know the facts.

In the first place, Germany's offer was not what it seemed to be. When ex