engineering work in the District of Columbia. He resigned in order to enter commercial work in civil life, but in a few years was chosen Colonel of the Seventy-first Regiment of the New York State Militia, and went with it to Tampa in the Spanish War. Transferred to the Philippines, he took an important part in the operations around Manila, and his report on that period of his life was characteristic of him in its picturesqueness and vigor.

General Greene's writing on public questions was always to the point and based on thorough study and complete information. Two or three of his articles have appeared in The Outlook. The most recent (issue of March 2, 1921) dealt with the important question of "Reparations and Interallied Debts."

The career of this soldier, scientist, administrator, and writer is noteworthy for the versatility of his abilities and achievement.

LIGHTHOUSES AND BELLS

I'

T is only seldom that the wreckage of the war is brought home to America. Our tax bills have mounted high. We have our wounded and our blind, but no blasted fields or shattered cities. It is right that we should be reminded as often as need be that in France, England, and Italy there are many broken lives, and that in Italy and France there is also still remaining material testimony of the pitiless war waged by the Central Powers. If we remember this, there will be a particular interest in the work which is being carried on by the Committee for Men Blinded in Battle, which is endeavoring to provide blinded

oldiers of France with a means of

making a partial living. Needless to add, perhaps, Miss Winifred Holt is at the head of this work-work which was founded in March, 1915. Those who know what has been done at the Lighthouse of the New York Association for the Blind will find it easy to visualize the work that is being done in France. For many years the Lighthouse for the Blind has taught such trades as typewriting, stenography, commercial courses, languages, music, handicrafts, and modeling, and in such necessary phases of life as the power to enjoy sports and the power to read Braille. All this work is being duplicated in France. Le Phare de France, or The Lighthouse of France, is equipped with an electric printing plant, handcraft shop for weaving and machine knitting, gymnasium with athletic appliances, a skating rink, and a complete equipment for the teaching of fencing. The French blind, too, are being trained in agricultural pursuits, such as chicken raising and the planting of crops, so that those

FROM PRESIDENT ZAYAS ΤΟ THE OUTLOOK

who were farmers may be enabled to return to the country and continue their normal vocations as far as possible. Over three thousand blind and partially blind have been aided by the Committee-Frenchmen, Belgians, Russians, Scotchmen, Canadians, Arabians, Swedes.

At the present time the Committee is trying to raise two million dollars to put the educational work on a permanent basis in France and in Italy.

Throughout northern France in the devastated region the churches were ruined and the bells melted down by the Germans or wantonly destroyed. Not a bell was left in the devastated regions to send forth its call to worship or to bring to the ears of the laborer the evening reminder of the Angelus.

The parish chimes play a larger part in French life than most Americans realize, and the loss of the beloved church bells has been a heavy blow to hundreds of villages and towns.

The American Committee for Devastated France has with poetic insight proposed that Americans desirous of giving a war memorial for their own honored dead should purchase a bell for some French village. The cost of a bell in France is approximately one hundred dollars, and it is hoped that at least one hundred people or one hundred groups of people will come forward with contributions of this amount. The Committee for Men Blinded in Battle, 111 East 59th Street, New York City, and the Angelus Fund Committee, of which Dr. Alexander Humphreys, 16 East 39th Street, New York City, is Treasurer, will acknowledge, with appreciation, checks sent to them by readers of The Outlook.

THE NEW PRESIDENT OF CUBA

R. ALFREDO ZAYAS took the oath of

Doffice as President of Cuba on May

20 and General Francisco Carillo became Vice-President. That the fierce opposition of the followers of General Gomez, the candidate of the Liberal party, to the Presidency of Dr. Zayas has sub

sided is due largely to the fact that our Government sent General Crowder to Cuba to act as observer. This convinced reasonable Cubans of the necessity of composing Cuban political quarrels without so misconducting themselves as to make intervention by this country likely. At all events, the Liberal members of Congress abandoned the novel plan proposed of "going on strike"-that is, refusing to take part in the sessions of the Cuban Congress and thereby leaving Congress without a quorum. One of the reforms promised by President Zayas in his inaugural speech is to change the quorum from two-thirds to one-half the members.

Other features of President Zayas's programme are measures to improve the financial and commercial situation, an amendment to forbid second consecutive Presidential terms, negotiation of a new reciprocity treaty with the United States to give Cuba better terms as regards sugar and tobacco, the creation of a Secretary of Communications, and a large reduction of the military budget.

Dr. Zayas was himself at one time a prominent Liberal and was elected as Vice-President when his present rival. Gomez, was chosen President. Zayas in the last election was the candidate of a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives, while Gomez was supported by the radical element of the old Liberal party.

President Zayas has an interesting personality. Both he and his VicePresident, General Carillo, were ardent revolutionists under the Spanish rule. Like his father before him, Zayas has been a lifelong admirer of Abraham Lincoln, as is evidenced in the accompanying message from the new President to The Outlook, sent through a friend in Cuba.

Dr. Zayas recently wrote to a

DR. ALFREDO ZAYAS, THE NEW PRESIDENT OF CUBA

(C) Keystone

Havana newspaper: "I'll never be tired of repeating and practicing the memorable motto of Abraham Lincoln: 'With malice to none; with charity toward all." Dr. Zayas has a high reputation as a lawyer and has had a long career in political life. He has an interesting personal side as an ethnologist and student of the language of the aboriginal Indian tribes found by the Spaniards in Cuba, as a lover and collector of books on history, literature, and poetry, and he is himself the writer of several poems, some of which, we are told, were composed by him while a prisoner in Madrid on his way with other Cuban patriots to the African prison in which they were immured. He has also, a correspondent tells us, a fluent knowledge of languages, is a thorough democrat in his manners, and is a speaker of great force, as well as "a clever, wise, and far-sighted politician, with a marked faculty for patient long-suffering and real Anglo-Saxon coolness."

troops to suppress this attempt to anticipate the decision of the Supreme Council.

Lloyd George, in a persuasively phrased speech in the House of Commons, declared that Poland had violated the Treaty of Versailles, a Treaty which gave to Poland her freedom, a freedom which she did not win by her own endeavor. He said: "Not merely to disarm Germany but to say that such troops as she has are not to be permitted to take part in restoring order is not fair play."

Premier Briand, in a statement to the press, pointed out that it had not yet been determined definitely what territory would go to Poland and what to Germany. He said that France with only twelve thousand troops had prevented the disorders from reaching serious proportions and that it was the duty of the Allies to impose their will upon Germans as well as Poles. M. Briand pointed out that the original intention of the Allies was to give the whole Silesian region to Poland, and that only at a later date was it decided to organize a system of advisory plebiscites. "I did not invent the system of plebiscites," Premier Briand said, with a smile, "I found it in the Treaty."

M. Briand added pertinently: "We have been getting a lot of advice from England recently, but it would be more useful for the re-establishment of or

if we could get the men to help our twelve thousand."

The French press has been bitter in its expressions of displeasure at Mr. Lloyd George's attitude. A date for a conference between Lloyd George and M. Briand for a discussion of their conflicting aims has been frequently set and as frequently postponed. It is probable that the conference will be held before this issue of The Outlook reaches our readers. This conference will do much towards determining whether the commercial interests of Great Britain and Germany will weigh more heavily in the balance than the human rights of Poles and the protection of the national life of France.

That the French policy is in the ascendant may be indicated by the announcement of May 24, which states that Germany (under threat-as always-of penalties) has agreed to withdraw her forces from the disputed territory.

A

WORTH TRYING

MERICANS are not pacifists. A few Americans are; but they are not representative of our people as a whole. Whatever movement there is for peace finds its support in the United States chiefly from people who have proved that when the time for fighting comes they can fight with all their hearts.

This must be remembered in considering the present movement in behalf of the limitation of armaments. Mr. Borah's amendment to the Naval Bill calling upon the President to engage with other nations in a conference with the object of limiting armament has received its support from the same kind of people who have hardly finished their experience of making America a formidable belligerent in the biggest war of history.

The reasons which have led to the support of the Borah Amendment are, we think, twofold.

In the first place, the American people, although they can be warlike, are unmilitary. The overwhelming majority of them dislike military trappings and military traditions. They believe so thoroughly in the supremacy of the civil authority that they are jealous of anything that seems to encroach upon it. Americans, therefore, have to reason themselves into whatever preparedness they provide for their country, and then usually do it only under the compulsion of an imminent peril. As a consequence they have sacrificed in their wars hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars in tardy preparation because they preferred such sacriice to the chance of giving too much

power or prominence to the military arm of the Government. In the second place, the American people are restive under the expenditure of money for military and naval provisions for which there seems to be no immediate need. They do not relish the thought of having the cost of a military and naval establishment both a heavy and a continuous burden. They may overlook the fact that the cost of a war for which no preparation has been made may ultimately entail greater expenditure than the cost of a war which has been well prepared for. They see clearly the necessity of paying past debts for war, but do not relish spending money for wars which have not yet appeared. Neither of these reasons is a pacifist reason; and they are both consistent with the conviction in favor of national defense.

The primary and essential function of a national government is self-preservation. It does not matter how many other functions the national government may assume under our present complicated civilization, all of these other functions rest upon the foundation of selfpreservation.

Though this principle remains unchanged, the application of it alters from time to time. The military and

in the Japanese Diet a resolution favoring the reduction of armament, that a postal-card canvass in Japan has recorded a great majority in favor of Mr. Ozaki's proposal. Great Britain has also been moving in the direction of limiting armaments for the past two years.

The time seems ripe for following out Senator Borah's suggestion that a conference be called to consider the question of a holiday in naval construction or a mutual reduction of naval forces. Perhaps a formal conference of ambassadors or prime ministers or delegates may not be the best way to reach a common agreement among nations in favor of a common limiting of armaments. The informal and quiet, less disputatious, but generally more frank interchange of ideas and plans through the usual diplomatic channels is very likely to prove more effective.

If we could procure a mutual readjustment of naval strength among the nations, we would confer a boon upon the tax-laden peoples of the world, the value of which it would be hard to estimate. There does not appear to be anything in the proposal for a discussion of this question which would jeopardize our National safety in the slightest degree.

be a very different thing from that required in 1921. We do not want to pay a dollar less for preparedness to-day than the total of the sum which is required. We cannot afford to pay a dollar more.

Seven years ago the Navy of the United States was surpassed by both that of Germany and Great Britain and was closely pressed by that of Japan. To-day the German navy is no longer in existence, the British navy has been reduced to a level with our own, and the Japanese navy is markedly inferior in size. If our present programme of naval construction is carried to completion, our Navy will exceed that of Great Britain in power by from thirty to fifty per cent. These facts we take from a recent editorial in the "Scientific American," a journal which has long been a wellinformed advocate of naval preparedness, and a journal, it may be added, which is willing to recognize the fact that circumstances have changed and that the measure of our preparedness requirement has been altered by the World War.

In two articles in this issue there is reported a movement in Japan away from the militarist party. Public opinion may not be as controlling in Japan as it is in America, but its influence is distinctly away from militarism. It has been recently reported by Madame Ozaki, whose husband has been urging

E

DWARD

DOUGLASS WHITE. Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, died in Washington at the age of seventy-five, on May 19. He had been in the full exercise of his remarkable powers as jurist and judge until a short time before his death, which followed an operation.

In the judgment of the legal profession and of all who have watched the findings and decisions of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice White is worthy of being classed with the most famous of his predecessors. John Marshall, to be sure, looms head and shoulders above all the Chief Justices, and, indeed, as a great publicist, a great lawyer, and a great expounder of the Constitution has no American counterpart, but among the other able judges who have held office none, unless it be John Jay, has stood higher than Chief Justice White.

It is interesting and rather remarkable to note that from 1789, when President Washington appointed John Jay as the first Chief Justice, down to Chief Justice White's death the other daythat is, for one hundred and thirty-two years there have been only eight Chief Justices of the United States Supreme Court. When we remember that the average age of these eight men at the time of taking office was almost fifty. and that two of the terms served, those of Jay and Ellsworth, were very short,

one is inclined to draw the inference that intellectual exertion of the highest kind is conducive to the continuance of mental vigor and power of close application to work. Marshall served as Chief Justice for thirty-four years, Taney for twenty-eight years, and Melville Fuller twenty-two years. Until Chief Justice White's death four Supreme Court Justices over seventy years of age were serving on the bench.

Another interesting point connected with Chief Justice White's service is that he was the first to be appointed Chief Justice from the bench of the Supreme Court. The custom of appointing some great lawyer or judge outside the bench had grown up, so that the course of President Taft in promoting Judge White was unusual, and the more so that Judge White was in his political affiliation a member of the party opposed to President Taft. Justice White was appointed to the Supreme Court bench by President Cleveland, and it was generally supposed that the President's choice of a man from Louisiana was partly based on the impossibility of appointing one from New York State owing to opposition within the State Democratic party led by Governor Hill. There never was any question, however, as to Judge White's ability as a lawyer and a publicist. He was a Confederate soldier; after the war he was admitted to the Louisiana bar, became a State Senator, then an Associate Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court, and finally United States Senator. He was a Roman Catholic.

Among the most important decisions of the Supreme Court during the period in which Chief Justice White presided over it were those of the Standard Oil and American Tobacco cases, in which his emphasis on "the rule of reason" was notable; that in which the status of the United States Steel Corporation was held to be legal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act; that of the Danbury hatters, in which he joined in the dictum that under the Sherman Act members of labor unions were not immune from prosecution and that the secondary boycott was illegal; and (quite recently) that in which the profiteering sections of the Lever Act were held invalid.

The breadth of Chief Justice White's view of the relations of the Supreme Court to life, as well as to law, is shown by his statement that it is "not an institution separate from the country, restraining and controlling all other institutions, but a court in direct contact with the best and most enlightened American minds, unfolding these minds for the lasting benefit of our people and our institutions."

SYSTEM AT LAST

N May 24, before the Academy of

Ο

Political Science in New York City, President Harding made this cheering statement:

We shall, I trust, have a budget system in operation under the law before the opening of the new fiscal year [July 1]. This is a long step toward introducing into Government the sound methods that great private business establishments have adopted. ... The establishment of a budget system is the foundation on which reorganization must be based. . . . A budget is a statement of estimated receipts and estimated expenditures. At least once a year, we believe, every one ought to make a budget.

Some people mistakenly think that our Government already does so. Once a year the chiefs of the bureaus of the executive departments estimate their expenditures during the ensuing year. Now these estimates as a rule, we suppose, do not represent actual needs.

The average Senator or Representative, none too familiar with inside depart

mental workings, tries to atone for his

lack of information by a brave show of enforcing economy. Hence bureau chiefs are likely to ask for more than they need on the theory that only so will they get what they must have.

The heads of the executive departments transmit the estimates of all their bureau chiefs to the Secretary of the Treasury, and he transmits them to Congress. Thereupon, in the budget's history, the administrative side ends and the legislative side begins.

I

Under the present administrative system we have endured extravagance and waste. Because we have not had a proper administrative budget, citizens have been heavily and outrageously taxed. It has long been evident that reform is necessary. Finally a budget bill passed the Sixty-sixth Congress a ver ago. President Wilson vetoed