200

band of Mexicans had conspired in the United States and gone across into Mexican territory to assassinate a Mexican. Naturally, Mexicans would feel that they had a grievance in consequence against the United States. And yet, under the circumstances, the United States Government would not be responsible.

Hotheads in Jugoslavia are calling for war against Bulgaria. The outcry for war in the Balkans has made Europe nervous. The Balkans have long been

Underwood & Underwood

General Arnulfo Gomez, whose death
was falsely reported
(See opposite page)

When

an international storm center. thunder growls there, it is not surprising that peoples in the rest of Europe prick up their ears. Bulgaria has expressed its regret to the Jugoslavian Government concerning the assassination; but expressions of regret do not end a matter of this sort. The situation is complicated. Britain and France have made suggestions to the Bulgarian Government that it would be advisable for it to take steps to restrain these bands. In the meantime, Bulgaria has declared martial law along the border. Three of the assassins are alleged to have been cornered on Serbian soil and two of these killed.

Behind the Throne in Rumania

men, the brothers Bratiano, whose importance in the destinies of the country is becoming increasingly evident. For a number of years now nothing has been able to shake them-not the marvelous will power of a King who held on to life in the teeth of death; not the nose for publicity possessed by its most beautiful Queen; not even the matrimonial difficulties and the hopes for the crown of Prince Carol, who has not yet mustered the force for an attack against the two leaders who are determined to keep him out of the country, guarding, at least nominally, the throne for the tiny King Michael, or Mihai.

It is seldom that a family produces three such geniuses for government as has the family Bratiano. First was the father, Jonel, who is credited practically with having created the Kingdom of Rumania and with establishing its dynasty. Extraordinarily enough, his work could be carried on, not only by his own party, the Liberals, but by his

own sons.

The Prime Minister of Rumania is now Jonel Bratiano, the son. He is the leader of Parliament. He is the controller of the political life. He is the director of the bitterest opposition to the return of Prince Carol, and the plunging of the country in the chaos, probably of civil war, which would be sure to follow a definite attempt by Carol to regain the throne which he now claims he abdicated only under compulsion.

It is possible that Jonel's brother, Vintila, is even more important to the stability of their fatherland than is the Prime Minister. Upon Vintila depends the financial security of the country. He has mastered the delicate tasks of balancing the budgets of a land which knew the exhaustion of war, and in a world where moneys of a dozen nations had become almost worthless he re-established and stabilized the Rumanian leu. He was Minister of War before his country entered the conflict, and was largely instrumental in preparing a weak army for the devastating conflict which awaited it. As Minister of Finance today, a position which he has held several times, and where the organizing ability which he developed as a highly efficient engineer asserts itself strongly, he has just been in Paris negotiating loans which only the financial stability which he had himself given Rumania made possible.

Political Europe knows that Carol is only biding his time to strike, and it is not counting on the Dowager Queen Marie, nor on the Queen Mother, the wife of Prince Carol, to control the situ

Not long ago a dazed but patrio Boston lamplighter and whilom janit styling himself "Organizer and Preside of the World League of Cities," sent his own cost invitations to countries a municipalities the world over to join a tercentenary Boston celebration 1930. Most of the invitees ignored invitations or cannily asked for light. But Moscow "bit," as the ph goes. Its Mayor was moved by the quest to carry the message, to every ner of Russia. He accepted. When Soviet officials learned the truth, took the joke in good part and on them remarked: "Moscow's sens humor being fully alive, its citizens readily join in the world's chor laughter."

Lamplighter Ryan did a noble he made Russia smile!

October 19, 1927

Μ'

UTINY in Mexico is so old a story that it causes little excitement in the United States. The only reason for surprise in the United States at a revolt now is the feeling which has been common that President Calles has the confidence and good will of the great majority of the Mexican people to such an extent that his Government has held the country in firm control. This conviction has been a reassurance of positive value to public opinion in the United States.

Our only concern with a Mexican internal crisis is the effect it may have upon our relations with Mexico. So long as partisan strife and civil war prevail there, we can have little hope of adjusting conflicts of interest between Mexico and the United States. For this reason, every evidence of stability and order in Mexico is cause for satisfaction on our side of the border.

It is too early to tell definitely what may be the outcome of the latest revolutionary movement, but the indications are that the Government will be able to hold the situation in hand.

The rebellion started on October 3, in the garrison of the Federal District, around the capital city. Its causes lay in the Presidential election contest, in which President Calles-officially and ustensibly a non-partisan-is said to favor his predecessor, friend, and former ally, General Obregon. The leaders of the conspiracy were General Francisco Serrano, the candidate of the "antire-election" party opposed to Obregon, and General Arnulfo Gomez, likewise a candidate for the post of Chief Executive, former military commander of the Federal District at the time of the de la Huerta uprising. Aiding and abetting them was General Hector Almada, formerly Chief of Staff of the capital garri

son.

The Government struck swiftly against its foes. Federal troops captured General Serrano in the State of Morelos ind-after a quick court martial-shot im and thirteen of his adherents. Runor had it that other loyal troops had aken and killed General Gomez. But e actually dodged arrest and the firing quad by a few moments, and escaped. wo other generals and a number of embers of the Chamber of Deputies -iendly to the plotters the GovernLent likewise executed in summary fash..

President Calles issued a statement Lat the Government had known all sout the plan of insurrection. Federal

forces pursuing Gomez and Almada began to come to grips with their contingents in the mountains of the State of Vera Cruz. Meanwhile General Obregon-the sole remaining Presidential candidate started for his native State of Sonora, where the Yaqui Indians were taking the war-path. They are enemies of the Government because of a decision over the distribution of land. Obregon's move may have been a response to a threat from Adolfo de la Huerta, now a refugee in California, but apparently in friendly accord with Gomez and reported to have considerable influence among the Yaquis.

The relentless way in which the Government has used its strong hand against its antagonists has caused inevitable outcries of shocked criticism. In these aftairs the man who succeeds in shooting his rival instead of being shot has the penalty of appearing as a violent charac

But if a parallel situation in the United States could be imagined-if, for instance, at the close of the Civil War the position of the Federal Government had been uncertain after the assassination of Lincoln and a group of Army generals had set in motion a military campaign to seize power-it is at least a question open to debate whether the end might not have been courts martial and execution. To raise the question is to reveal how utterly different is basic political life in the United States and in Mexico, and how impossible it is for us to pass judgment on Mexican action. Butour interest lying in stable administration in Mexico we can take encouragement from every evidence that the Government has the situation under command.

A

Hoover and the
Politicians

RE there any more great men? In leveling up the mass of the people has democracy leveled the leaders down? Have the common people gained at the sacrifice of genius? Is the world hereafter to be ruled by mediocrity? Are the men in high position in the world of today mere pygmies that appear to be giants only because they are walking on the stilts of office?

These are questions which have been recently raised, as we suppose they have recently raised, as we suppose they have been raised in every generation. To many minds the Golden Age is always in the past. These questions therefore

201

are not new. new form. asked at the very time when it is also asked whether democracy, which is held responsible for this process of leveling down, is not itself disappearing.

They are simply taking a Oddly enough, they are

It is the fashion now to "debunk" the past. But there is no corresponding tendency to exalt the present. Cynicism does not work that way. Attempts to show that the great in the past have inflated reputations and were really, after all, only small men give the impression that the dwarfs of today are by so much the more dwarfish. The gospelers of disillusion are as unhappy about the present as about the past.

In particular, the newspapers seem bent on making big men appear little. They really are not bent on any such thing; they just naturally do it. Newspapers are the product of men who, like the rest of us, prefer to do what is easy rather than what is hard; and it is the easiest thing in the world to pull down reputation. A newspaper man, like fate, loves a shining mark. Besides, a newspaper man who sees the great man often and in close view notes the unessential oddities and defects that disappear in perspective. He can prove his close acquaintance best by noting those insignificant traits. He not only paints the wart, but makes it the outstanding feature of his subject's countenance. course he describes the obvious; and to the newspaper man the obvious is whatever makes the big man seem little.

Of

There is only one way by which we can approximate a just estimate of the leaders of our time. That is to exercise sufficient imagination to view them from a point not in the present but in the future. This is not an unscientific thing to do. Indeed, it is the way of those who draw upon science for any constructive work. Those, for example, who are contributing most to aeronautics must by imagination place themselves at some point in the future, construct in their imagination a picture of the airplane as it then will be, and upon that point of view seize upon those elements in aviation at present in which the potentialities of the future are to be found. Every true estimate must be made from a distance that provides perspective. And so it is with the estimate of the leading men of our day.

What will such a view of Herbert Hoover tell us?

It will show the figure of a man unexampled in history. Of what man in any age can be told the story which Vernon Kellogg in this issue of The Outlook tells of Herbert Hoover? Other

202

men have been responsible for the death of millions, or at least have been responsible for the direction of events that have resulted in the death of millions. But what other man has been so directly responsible for the direction of affairs that have saved in an emergency and within a brief period so many millions of lives? This is not to say that to Herbert Hoover belongs all the credit of what was done for the relief of Belgium and northern France during the early months of the war. Credit for that is widely distributed. But it is to say that the man who made that work possible and practicable, who overcame obstacles that to millions of others seemed insuperable, who built up, as it were, a sort of state, as Mr. Kellogg says, negotiating treaties, controlling fleets, directing the operations of railways and mills and warehouses, and steering its way across the no man's land between belligerentsthat man was an outstanding genius. As a figure in history it is fair to say that he is unique.

What matters it that when he speaks to a large audience his voice does not extend beyond the first few rows of his auditors? What matters it that he is not a hail-fellow-well-met with every man he meets? What matters it that he is not in the least interested in pulling wires for the personal advantage of this man or the other?

Any man who has been tested as he has been, who has been a great administrator in every position he has held, whether handling the food problems of Belgium and northern France, or later the food problems of the United States in war time, or later the problems that confront the Secretary of Commerce, or, finally, the problems involved in the relief and restoration of the flooded districts of the Mississippi, seems to be ideally equipped for the administration of the great office of the Presidency of the United States.

The question is not whether he is great enough for the office, but whether he may not be too great for it. Not too great for the office as perhaps it ought to be, but too great for the office as it is. The President of the United States is not merely the executive head of the Nation; he is also party leader. He must not only direct the execution of the laws and lead in proposing great National policies, but also keep satisfied and contented thousands of party workers by managing compromises between scores and hundreds of party leaders. He must consider those little things of personal relationships, of appreciation of petty services, of friendly understanding of

As a rule, our Presidents have not been selected because they were seen to be geniuses. Since the development of party government in this country most of the candidates for the Presidential office have been chosen largely for party reasons. If they have shown greatness in office, it is at least partly because they have been developed by their experience in office and in some cases partly because they had elements of greatness that were not recognized when they were chosen.

Shall Herbert Hoover prove an exception? tion? In a recent conference of political leaders at Washington it is reported that there was general recognition of the possibilities of Mr. Hoover as a candidate. Have we come to the time when public recognition of genius may outweigh the approval of party leaders? Have party differences become so blurred that it is less important to select a man who can lead a party than it is to select a man who can lead the people?

Is Democracy Dying?

A

LARMISTS and observers of surface indications only have Deen pointing to what has been going on in Russia, Italy, and Spain as proving that there is a strong double drift from representative government: the one toward rule by one man; the other toward rule by intrenched committees of classes, such as the Russian Soviet, founded on proletarial dictatorship. But there are stronger indications of a fundamental trust in rule by those chosen freely by the people and acting for the people.

One such indication is a recent article by M. Stéphane Lauzanne, editor of "Le Matin," an able and moderate Paris journal. In this article, which we find in the New York "Herald Tribune," M. Lauzanne says, on the one hand, that there is not the slightest chance of France going Fascist; and, on the other, that France will never become Bolshevist; that "she lacks confidence in the first system and has a horror of the second." The reasons on which these predictions rest lie in French character and history, but they apply also to other advanced nations. The French, M.

Lauzanne points out, have a profound sense of order, and they also have the passion of criticism and a satirical eye for the theatrical. Therefore it is that "the Frenchman is aware that all public liberties the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the freedom of assembly-have been the ransom paid for the restoration of order in Italy, and he is not prepared to pay such a price. Above all, he is not ready to abdicate that right of criticism which he has imbibed with his childhood's milk."

As to the French sense of order, he recalls the crisis in 1926 when the French political engine was being driven aimlessly and recklessly. France did not scrap her engine; she called in another engineer, Poincaré. Look at the engine now, says, in effect, M. Lauzanne. "It is exactly the same type; . . . it is neither an Italian tank nor a Russian sledge."

As to the antics and black shirts of Fascism, the French are too much amused to take such theatre stuff as government.

In short, this excellent article sum up the situation in a few words: "Franc wants authority in liberty. Neither th two words nor the two things are in compatible."

In England and in America there hav been lately utterances from powerf labor leaders showing that organize labor and Red radicalism are not on not inclined to each other, but are na urally and mutually hostile. Thus Pre ident Green, of the American Federati of Labor, rejoiced at Los Angeles that, he said, the British labor movement h driven the Communists out root a branch. He then formulated the Ame can labor feeling in these words: "O is an American trade-union moveme and we are not going to listen to the c of any siren luring us to experiment w the lives of our men and women on ders from men born in a land of cl hatred and ruled by dictators for c turies." In the same week Ram MacDonald, the former Labor Pr Minister, himself a mild Socialist, clared at the annual Conference of British Labor Party that what needed was for the party "to present the nation definite pledges of work. reforms rather than vague propaga for a distant Socialist state." And Conference voted to formulate that of a platform for the next general tion.

There is no present danger that of the new experiments in forms of ernment will overthrow Lincoln's i of government of the people, by the ple, for the people.

I

HAVE known Herbert Hoover since his student days of thirty-five years ago at Stanford University, both as a neighbor and as a leader in great undertakings. I have been associated with him in the Belgian Relief, the United States Food Administration, the relief and reconstruction measures in Europe during the Armistice, the Russian Famine Relief, the Belgian Educational Foundation, the American Child Health Association. I have known him. especially in those activities where for the first time in history the highest statesmanship, leadership, and executive ability have been applied as vigorously to save human lives as they have ever hitherto been applied by men and nations to carry on life-extinguishing

war.

Those achievements of Hoover as a great public servant engaged in building up stability in business, employment, and prosperity may be discussed by others who have participated in them. My story is solely of the origins and of the humanitarian work of Herbert Hoover. But these adventures in human welfare might, indeed, also be called "big business," for they have, altogether, involved the effective and honest handling of ten or twelve billion dollars, used in saving the lives and homes of literally scores of millions of people and mitigating the suffering and preserving the health of tens of millions of childrenalways the objects of Hoover's primary solicitude.

There is something new to the world. in all this something greater than those immense human efforts stimulated by the emotionalism of war. For has not Hoover applied the same kind of generalship and effective action displayed in the destructive activities of war, and even on a similarly extensive scale, in his constructively humane work in Europe and the United States? Did we ever quite recognize, before the example Hoover set us, our great responsibilities and the saving possibilities of high organization for the relief of human suffering caused by war and famine and flood?

However, he was not a neglected orphan. Devoted Quaker aunts and uncles and grandparents took care of him. But he was moved about a good deal. After a few years in Iowa, he was sent for a year to the Indian Territory to an uncle, then in the United States Indian Service, and after that to the Quaker town of Newberg, Oregon, near Portland, where he lived with an uncle who was a farmerdoctor and whose ministrations are still remembered in that community. The example set by that doctor uncle may

in the small Quaker village of West Branch, Iowa, of a long line of American Quaker ancestors. His father, a country blacksmith, died when he was six; his mother, a woman of unusual mental gifts, died when he was eight.

Hoover's later activities.

The boy had chores to attend to on the farm, but they were arranged not to interfere with his classes in a small but good Quaker academy near by. He had not much time for play-except fishing.

It was a serious, perhaps a little too serious, life for a boy, but it built up a sound physique. At fourteen he was introduced to the pleasures of earning his own living, first working on a farm and then as an office boy at Salem and Portland, Oregon.

One day there came to the office an engineer engaged in work for the firm. He stayed a few days and became acquainted with the boy. They liked each other. The man brought with him a glimpse of the outside world, especially the world of science and discovery and engineering. He talked with the boy about education. He told him about universities, especially about the opportunities they afforded for the study of science and engineering. The uncle and other Quaker relatives had in mind.

204

sending the boy to one of the few Quaker colleges of the country-good colleges, but not particularly equipped for engineering study. The visit of the engineer put something into the mind of the boy. He decided that he would go to a modern university, and one which gave special attention to science.

A new university of this type was just being established in California. It was called Leland Stanford Junior University, in memory of the dead son of its founders, Senator and Mrs. Leland Stanford, and it had a famous scientific man, David Starr Jordan, as President. The Faculty of the new University included, among other first-class scientists, the eminent geologist John Caspar Branner. It also, had as Professor of Mathematics Joseph Swain, a Quaker, later President of Swarthmore College. Swain visited Oregon, and the boy called on him and received encouragement to go to Leland Stanford, although his preparation was then deficient. Dr. Swain gave him

sound advice about bettering this preparation. Herbert Hoover decided to enter Stanford University at its opening if he could prepare himself for admission.

This capacity for determination, so conspicuous in the man, was already present in the boy.

The decision about the university involved attendance at a business college night school as the only available opportunity for preparation that did not interfere with the office job. But the decision held, and in October, 1891, when the University opened, Herbert Hoover was on hand as member of its first freshman class. He "majored" in geology with Professor Branner, as that department

The Qutlook for

upon the Arkansas and United States Geological Survey and in the mines of California.

Besides making some acquaintance with the principles of geology and engineering during these four years in Professor Branner's laboratories and lecture-room he also made acquaintance there with a beautiful California girlwho was similarly majoring in geology. Out of this latter acquaintanceship grew a college romance with the happiest of results, namely, a marriage and two

sons.

Herbert Hoover blesses the memory of that visiting engineer who came to the Oregon office and took such an interest in the Quaker boy he found there. His visit was a seed that blossomed. But it blossomed because it found receptive soil.

To be a college graduate and willing

o be a college graduate in engineer

to work, and to have a brain with an irrepressible habit of collecting, weighing, and combining facts and using them, with imagination added, to determine constructive action-these, together with a healthy body, apparently inexhaustible vital energy, and a definite aim in life were the equipment of the Stanford graduate of 1895' as he laid aside his sheepskin to take up the miner's pick. To make his start he went direct to the mines, for mining meant work in a mine, and the first work in a mine is done with a pick. The shift boss of the Mayflower mine in California is never tired of telling of the days when Herbert Hoover was "just a common laborer in his gang."

Hoover's hands did not long hold the pick. There were more brains, more science, more imagination, and more ambition behind them than mere digging demanded. But when he moved on. adding another one to the growing group of American engineers scattered over the world wherever great engineering enterprises called them, he carried with him this practical knowledge of mining from below the ground up. An older influential American engineer, acquainted with him through professional contacts, recommended him for an important engineering job in Australia. It was just at the time of the exciting development of mines in West Australia-one of the world's great deserts, with large prob lems not only of mining but of water supply and transportation. It was the kind of opportunity that tests men. Hoover passed the test and, although still only a youngster, had made his name as constructive engineer.