sume control. Beyond doubt, there was à genuine desire to leave the Republican Administration in control of the legislaive branch of the Government. With it, undoubtedly, was a canny desire to avoid any share of organized responsibility for what may occur during the

Charles G. Dawes

next few months. Though the prospect of continued prosperity on a high level is good, it is, of course, possible that there may be some subsidence. In view of that, the Democrats were willing enough to avoid manufacturing a campaign excuse for the Republicans.

But the difficulty is not so easily got ver. The Democrats can hardly go through the session peacefully doing nothing. The fact remains that they constitute practically half of the Senate, and certain Republican Senators of the irregular kind will undoubtedly make common cause with them from time to time. These irregulars, upon getting assurances from the Republican leader that some of their measures would receive consideration, joined with the regulars in organizing the Senate and obtained important chairmanships; but they will not follow the Republican leader on all measures.

In the Senate the Democrats have the choice of controlling legislation by alliance with either the regular or the irregular Republicans; and either course, from a party standpoint, is not without objectionable features.

Delays and Appeals Checked "THE

HE delays that have dragged this case out for six years are inex

cusable," said Governor Fuller, of Massachusetts, of the Sacco-Vanzetti case. The delays occurred because the law made it possible. The flaw has been remedied (in 1925) in part by legislation; the Massachusetts Judicial Council now in a report to the Governor points out as a still serious source of delay "the right now existing in murder cases to file motions for a new trial at any time up to sentence." It recommends that motions for new trial should not be allowed after a year elapses from the sitting of the court at which the trial took place. More stringent and more effective is the Council's sharp comment: "There should be one appeal as of right in a capital case, but there need be no more."

As to the much-debated question whether under the Massachusetts procedure (as in the Sacco-Vanzetti case, for instance) the Supreme Court had power to pass upon the weight of evidence, the Council declared that it had not, provided there had been sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of the case to a jury. The Council concedes it improbable that a trial judge would be, unless very rarely, guilty of such indiscretion as to make this state of things injurious, yet it thinks it desirable to follow New York State's example in the review of capital cases and explicitly advises the Governor to favor "legislation conferring on the Massachusetts Supreme Court powers identical with those now vested in the New York Court of Appeals." England has a special Court of Criminal Appeal by which an appeal as to the weight of evidence may be heard; but there is only the one appeal, and delays are sternly held within limit.

Massachusetts' courts are of high repute; she is not slow in making her laws surer and prompter when reason therefor appears.

Nationalism or Communism in China ?

HINA'S Nationalists have recalled

Frank O. Lowden

Communists. The group represented at Hankow seems to be less radical than the Cantonese, but more radical than the administration at Nanking. The latter demands a definite break with Communism and concentration on the cause of Chinese Nationalism.

Several times the committee conferences have nearly broken up in consequence of these differences; and each time the need to reunify the southern forces opposing the northern militarists at Peking has held them together. Now all power has been put into the hands of General Chiang, to decide the time and place for the next convention of the whole Nationalist Party.

It appears now that Chiang Kaishek is the one man around whom the Chinese factions may be willing to rally.

"The Greatest Lawsuit in History"

The Central Executive Committee of the party has been meeting in Shanghai, preparing for the fourth plenary session

cle by Mr. H. R. Fraser in which he told the history of what has been called the greatest lawsuit of our times. The suit involved only a little railroad nine miles long, but the underlying question might be applied to the valuation of all railroad property in the United States.

Now comes a decision made by the

United States District Court at St. Louis, subject, of course, to appeal to the United States Supreme Court and not clearly and broadly a decision as to the proper way of fixing valuation of railways in general.

Under the existing Transportation Act, railways are restricted as to the amount of dividends they may pay; if the earnings exceed the amount fixed, say six per cent, the Government takes the excess and applies it to the needs of roads which do not earn their proper quota. It is because of this state of affairs that the question of valuation is so enormously important. The freight The freight and passenger rates are controlled by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and if the railway's method of valuation were to be approved, thus increasing the valuation over that of the Interstate Commerce Commission by some ten billion dollars, then the railways would be entitled and should receive permission to raise rates.

The two opposing principles of valuation are based, one (the Interstate Commerce Commission) on the original cost plus improvements; the other (that of the railways) on the reproduction cost at the present time.

The Court at St. Louis found that the admitted earnings of this little railway around which this stupendous litigation circles were such that the Commission was entitled to "recapture" excess earnings. This settles the case (except for appeal), but it does not pronounce, except possibly by inference, on the principle of valuation. It was not necessary to inquire whether the Commission had confiscated the railway property, because in this case the facts show that no such condition existed.

When letters reached us from our readers asking what could be done to help withstand the threatened invasion, we gave the information requested. The response was extraordinary. Those readers of The Outlook who wrote to Congress in protest can take satisfaction in knowing that they had a large part in preserving Yellowstone Park for the time being at least.

Now with this new Congress the attack has been renewed. Against this proposal are arrayed both the National Park Service and the National Forest Service. It is not intended for the improvement of the Park, but for the benefit of special interests. A hearing has been held by the Secretary of the Interior at which the opponents of the bill as introduced by Representative Smith were strongly in the majority. It is hardly conceivable that the Secretary of the Interior should favor the project.

At present the Bechler Meadows of Yellowstone Park seem not to be in immediate danger, but it is well for friends of our National Parks to be vigilant.

Scenes in Oklahoma

A

LMOST

exists in Oklahoma State politics, where a self-called legislative session has been meeting in spite of a Supreme Court ban and the presence of the National Guard in the Capitol. By votes, in which the smallest majority was 40 to 15, the lower house has preferred charges against Governor Harry S. Johnston of replacing the civil authority with the military, of incompetency, and of an illegal payment and other misdeeds. The situation is due to an excessively complicated Constitution and the growing habit of electing Governors chiefly to serve as impeachment victims.

The impeachment of Governor Walton in 1923 provided an epic diversion in the Klan fight and proved so enjoyable that it has been tried on every Governor since. To make the procedure easier a Constitutional amendment was passed enabling the Legislature to call an impeachment session if a majority of the members demanded. The Supreme Court has declared that the amendment was unconstitutionally passed, although it was submitted to a referendum in the next general election after it was proposed, as the Constitution requires, and in face of the known fact that there is nothing easier than amending the Okla

homa Constitution. Nevertheless court action gives the Governor grounds for refusing to recognize the present session and summoning the National Guard to prevent the meeting in the Capitol.

The quarrel originated over the Gov ernor's appointment of highway commis sioners who were opposed by the major ity faction in the Legislature, and ove the alleged undue political influence of Mrs. G. M. Hammons, the Governor's secretary. There is the usual gossip about the unpopularity of the Governor But the real mischief appears due to the self-called provision for impeachment sessions, which tempts the Legislature to aggrandize its influence by indulging in the impeachment game wantonly; and from an opposite aspect, encourages the Supreme Court to strain for chief au thority in the State.

Genuine abuses of the Governor's power probably can be checked sufficiently by leaving impeachments to regular sessions.

The Sinclair Contempt Case

HA

ARRY F. SINCLAIR, lessee of Teapot Dome, admits in the contempt proceedings against him in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia tha: he, through his associates and agents employed Burns Agency sleuths to shadow the jury which was trying him and Albert B. Fall, former Secretary of the Interior, on the charge of conspiracy to defraud the Government in connection with the Teapot Dome naval oil reserve lease. Then he seeks to justify this action.

In answering the contempt rule against him, Sinclair declared that "the prosecution of him by the Governmen: of the United States has been conducted in a manner not in accord with the usual procedure pertaining to the trial of criminal cases;" that he has been made "the object of a special prosecution initiated, sponsored, and nurtured by the Congress of the United States in a manner and to an extent never before visited upon a citizen of the United States."

In short, Sinclair declares that he had the jury shadowed in order to protect himself from an unjust verdict. He does not say that he suspected the Corgress of the United States or any other agency of the United States Government of an intention to tamper with the jury. but he broadly intimates that such was his belief.

Justice Siddons refused to dismiss the contempt rule on this showing. It was difficult for him, as it will be difficult for other American citizens, to believe that the Government of the United States through any of its agencies sought improperly to influence a jury in a criminal

case.

It is difficult to believe that Mr. Sinclair was impelled to the course which The adopted through wholly worthy motives. But to this, as to all cases, there are two sides.

No man is ever so guilty that he should be prejudged by lay opinion.

Chess by Wireless

W

HEN we speak of a game of chess,

we think of two silent men facing a chess-board, each waiting patiently in turn for the other's move. But, as a matter of fact, chess games have often been carried on by correspondence and sometimes even across the ocean. Now chess is beginning to take advantage of the newest science to carry on longdistance games. We are told that not only chess but checker matches have been played with success by radio wireless.

It is quite possible that intercity matches of radio chess will become common. One such match was carried on recently between clubs in Santa Barbara and San Diego, really, if not formally, for the championship of southern California. Amateur wireless stations were prepared for the occasion, and the movements went smoothly back and forth for several simultaneous games by use of the abbreviations for chess men and moves which are known to every one who studies chess problems. It is said that Santa Barbara, the winner, now wants to challenge New York, Chicago, and Shanghai.

Another game, we are told, was played between two high school teams, one in New York and the other in Chicago. One comment of an operator, who had certainly kept busy with the complications of this intricate game, was, "It was hard work, but lots of fun."

If radio can jazz up chess, it can enliven anything.

the center of the chamber is a great table, and around it are chairs, and on the back of each chair is a plate bearing the name of one of the American nations.

When these chairs were made and placed in the positions they were to occupy, the space was not quite filled.

Wide World

Viscount Willingdon, Governor-General of Canada

One chair was not there. It had been sent to storage to await the time when it could properly be placed with the others about the table. On the plate which it bore was the name of Canada.

When Vincent Massey came to Washington as the first Minister from Canada, that chair was eligible to take its place at the council table of the PanAmerican Union. Whether it actually and physically did so or not is no part of the story.

There came to Washington the other day Viscount Willingdon, GovernorGeneral of Canada. The office which he fills is one of the few tangible threads which now bind Canada to the British Empire.

When there were more such threads, when the ties between Canada and the Empire were bulkier if not stronger, no Governor-General of Canada saw fit to make a visit to the capital of the United States. Viscount Willingdon was the first to come.

The Governor-General and Viscountess Willingdon were received in Washington with all of the ceremony due to royalty, for they represented King George of England. But they repre

sented, too, the Government of Canada, an American commonwealth.

Where English peoples are concerned the semblance of monarchy takes nothing from the substance of democracy.

Heroism Recognized

T is twenty years since The Outlook first called the attention of its readers to the heroism of John R. Kissinger. This heroism was best described in the words of Dr. Walter Reed, who said: "In my opinion, there has been no higher exhibition of moral courage in the annals of the Army of the United States."

Kissinger was a private soldier. When Dr. Reed began his experiments in Cuba which ended by proving beyond possibility of doubt that yellow fever is transmitted through a certain species of mosquito, Kissinger volunteered in the service of humanity, knowing fully the risks, and he was the first subject of those experiments. He had a severe attack, but recovered. Later he became. ill and helpless.

Last spring The Outlook called the attention of its readers to the fact that John R. Kissinger was in straitened. circumstances, with only a small pension from the Government, and that there was a plan on foot to aid him and his faithful wife to buy a home. Our readers contributed to this end generously and are entitled to a very large share in the honor of carrying out this plan. The fund has now been wound up. The title deed to a pleasant home at Huntington, Indiana, has been presented to him, and a small balance which remained has been handed to him in cash.

Kissinger's heroism did, in fact, in itself prove first and positively the theory which has won the war against yellow fever.

The incident does not, however, absolve this country from its debt to those who risked their life and health in this memorable triumph of science and courage against disease. The widows of several of the men who risked their lives are still living. If ever there were cases in which a nation should recognize its obligations to those near and dear to martyrs of science, these are such

cases.

This country is not so poor that it will not approve of Congress providing pensions for the dependent survivors of the yellow-fever heroes.

American Money Abroad

A

LMOST anything that brings nations or peoples into friendly contact with one another may also bring them into hostile contact. Trade, which should be the amicable exchange of commodities, may cause friction. Even international athletics, designed to promote mutual acquaintance and good feeling, has not been wholly free from disturbances. So it is with international financial transactions. People often see in them the danger of entanglements and even possible causes of international conflicts.

For example, a loan of American capital has been negotiated by the South Manchurian Railway. It has been reported that the State Department has said that it sees no objection to such a loan. Of course, it is not the money of the United States Government that is being lent, but the money of those Americans who are willing to buy from bankers the bonds of the railway. Already the proposal of such a loan has called forth protests from certain leaders of the Chinese. Manchuria is traditionally Chinese territory; but the South Manchurian Railway, owned in part by private individuals, some Chinese and some Japanese, is owned largely by the Japanese Imperial Government. Anything that strengthens the South Manchurian Railway naturally, it is supposed, strengthens the interest of Japan in this province. But Russia also has interests in Manchuria. How, it be asked, can America act as a disinterested friend of Japan and China and Russia alike, if American money is at stake in an enterprise which may help Japan in her rivalry with Russia for dominating influence in a province that is claimed by China? Will not the floating of this loan in the American market tend to entangle us in Far Eastern affairs?

may

Such loans would certainly lead to trouble if the United States were disposed to use or threaten force for the repayment of them when due. But the Government has never committed itself to the policy of collecting by force foreign debts due her citizens. Elihu Root in 1906 declared at Buenos Aires: "The United States of America has never deemed it to be suitable that she should use her Army and Navy for the collection of ordinary contract debts of foreign governments to her citizens." This statement was quoted by Dwight W. Morrow at the time a member of the firm of J. P. Morgan & Co.-in the quarterly review "Foreign Affairs" for last January, and Mr. Morrow added: "Investors who buy foreign loans are in a position to appreciate what a fruitless remedy for breach of contract war is. . . . Is there any one who thinks that if a man owes him money and cannot pay it, there is profit in going out and killing the debtor?"

But the question is deeper than that. Even though these loans are not collectable by force, will they not involve us in political entanglements with other countries?

For an answer let us see precisely for what such a loan for the South Manchurian Railway is needed.

The South Manchurian Railway is a commercial enterprise. It seeks a loan to refund its existing debt and to improve the physical condition of the road. It seeks a part of the loan abroad for commercial reasons. In large part the materials which the railway requires-rolling stock, rails, etc.—will come from the United States. To buy these materials it therefore needs dollars. As it is a profitable business venture, it enjoys credit not only at home but abroad.

The fact that the Japanese Government, as we understand it, proposes to guarantee the railway's bonds both as to principal and interest involves no political consideration, but

simply assures the railway a lowering of the cost of the bor rowing. The United States Government has no part in the guaranty of the loan.

Perhaps an analogy may make this clearer. Suppose the South Manchurian Railway ordered fifteen million dollars' worth of steel rails from the United States Steel Corporation. If the Corporation accepted and filled the order, it could scarcely be argued that such a transaction identified the United States Government or the Steel Corporation with Japanese policy in Manchuria or China. The Steel Corporation would be merely serving a foreign customer. The South Manchurian Railway, however, wishes to borrow the funds with which to make such a purchase. This involves trade in which the commodity bought and sold is money. International trade in money or credit carries no greater politica implication than does international trade in steel rails.

Of all forms of foreign trade, such international trade in money or credit is, however, in some senses the most easily controlled. Some governments, among them our own, control it in what they conceive to be the general interest. As a consequence an international transaction in money in which the United States citizens are involved as lenders carries the impli cation that it has been permitted because it is not considered inimical to the general interests of the people of the United States. The fact that a South Manchurian Railway loan is sold in the United States could therefore be said to imply tha the Government did not consider such a transaction inimica to the interests of the United States; but it could not be said to imply that either the Government or the people of the United States approved or disapproved Japanese policy in South Manchuria or in any way identified itself therewith. But how will such a loan affect China and Russia?

To such a question it is hard to give any answer in genera terms. The answer will depend upon the state of mind of th Russians and the Chinese themselves. Russia's interest Manchuria is principally north of the Chinese Eastern Rai way. It would seem, therefore, that there can be no rea conflict between Russia and Japan in South Manchuria. I does not seem likely that Russians could, it certainly seems unreasonable if they should, object to the loan of American capital to aid in the development of that territory.

Because the conditions in China and the state of mind in the Chinese are more difficult to understand, the effect of the South Manchurian loan on China is more difficult to meas ure. Perhaps the state of mind of the Chinese will be better understood if it is remembered that the Japanese administra tion of this railway was a result of war between Japan an Russia on Chinese territory, by virtue of which Japan aquired its leasehold. Investors should, and doubtless w take that fact into consideration. The issue of a loan in this country, however, will not change the status of the South Manchurian Railway or of Japan in Manchuria. That is evident; but the issue of the loan has evidently served as an occasion for a display of sentiment against Japan in particular and against all foreigners in general. And yet th fact can hardly justify the idea that the South Manch rian Railway should be abandoned. South Manchuria, in contrast to almost all the rest of the Chinese Empire C Republic, if you will), has enjoyed peace and a degree of safety for persons and property; and as a consequence forem trade has quintupled in twenty years and the Chinese popula tion has increased nearly tenfold. This tranquillity, with its accompanying prosperity, is due almost wholly to the South Manchurian Railway and the administration of the leased areas. Surely the prevention of a loan to pay off the debt

and to improve the physical condition of the railway could not be of any benefit to China.

If any general conclusion can be drawn from such a case as this, it might be stated briefly as follows: Ordinarily Americans ought to be left free from interference by their Government to invest their money in anything they please. Interference by the Government should occur only in cases in which obviously the investment would be contrary to the interests of the United States-as it would be obviously for the purpose of aiding a foreign government planning hostile action against the United States. In some cases, doubtless, the susceptibilities of other peoples must be taken into consideration in planning a loan; but such susceptibilities should not govern if they run counter to the real welfare of the peoples mainly concerned. Trade, commerce, and other transactions between peoples are means of uniting peoples, and of also dividing them from one another. We cannot have the benefit of the union without the danger of division. Some of those who urge most strongly that nations should trade freely with one another, each contributing what it has in abundance to what the other needs, are the very people who are most likely to protest against the international loans and finances without which international trade is impossible. After all, in all such matters the prime requisite is that what is done should be done openly, honestly, and in the spirit of fair dealing.

We in America do not see our way to accepting the obligations of League membership, but we can recognize accomplishments like these and their practical value for the maintenance of world order.

I

The Smith-Vare Case

N excluding Frank L. Smith, of Illinois, and William S. Vare, of Pennsylvania, from the seats for which they brought credentials from the Governors of their respective States, the United States Senate has confirmed the precedent which, by excluding Mr. Smith from an unexpired term, it established last January.

Of the power of the Senate to exclude any one who presents himself for admission to its membership there is no question. There are those who declare that it has not only the power but the right to do so. They point to that provision in the United States Constitution which declares that each house of Congress "shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members." The Senate has itself interpreted this to mean that it can decide, not only who among claimants for membership are qualified under the Constitution, by virtue of age, residence, and the like, but who is qualified according to its own standards. This power rests not merely upon the Constitutional provision but upon ancient parliamentary practice. In the sense that there is no

W

HEN a war starts nowadays, it is impossible to say how far it may spread; 1914 proved that. And the League of Nations has just shown how valuable, in a time of interrelated national interests, is a permanent agency for dealing with conflicts before they become incontrollable.

Two states that did not exist before the World War— Poland and Lithuania-have been endangering the peace of Europe. Yet the Allied Powers, without whose recognition the existence of these states would have had no sure sanction, could not with propriety interfere directly. The Powers could, and did, make suggestions to them, but had to treat them with all the consideration due to sovereign states, even though their sovereignty is comparatively far less secure. But there was the League of Nations at Geneva, of which both quarreling nations are members, and they could be, and were, induced to submit their differences for full discussion before its Council. Both Premier Waldemaras, of Lithuania, and Marshal Pilsudski, of Poland-each a dictator in his own land-attended the sessions, and Pilsudski actually precipitated the peace settlement by threatening to go home and talk war.

The trouble arose over Poland's annexation, seven years ago, of the city of Vilna, which Lithuania claimed as her capital. A technical state of war has existed ever since, and has led to mutual bickerings over the way that Poland has treated Lithuanians within her borders and, similarly, the way that Lithuania has treated Poles. Russia and Germany, their neighbors, have been concerned over recurrent threats of Lithuanian-Polish conflict, and France and Great Britain have watched the danger zone with anxiety. Now the two antagomists have accepted a declaration by the League Council that the state of war is at an end and have consented to settle the ssues between them diplomatically. True, the question of Vilna remains to be adjusted, and a League Commission is to look into that matter and also the treatment of minorities. But the main thing is that the outcome of League action was preservation of peace.

this power is arbitrary. Against the exercise of it there is no possibility of appeal.

Because it has the power to expel any member by a twothirds vote or to exclude a claimant to membership by a simple majority without any review by any power except that of public opinion, a parliamentary body like the Senate has an extraordinarily grave responsibility. Every time it excludes a claimant it establishes a precedent which under other circumstances may prove dangerous to the rights of a minority, and even to the proper maintenance of representative government. It must be assumed that in the cases of Messrs. Vare and Smith those who voted for exclusion considered, not only whether these men were desirable members of the Senate, or whether the use of money in the primaries by which they were nominated was corrupting, but also whether the decision as to their fitness to sit in the Senate should be taken from the States which sent them and assumed by the Senate itself.

Parliamentary bodies have exercised this arbitrary power arbitrarily. The New York Legislature, for example, excluded Socialists from membership because of utterances of which the majority disapproved. That action set a precedent that well might become dangerous. And yet the danger of limiting the power of a legislative assembly in such a case as that is greater than the danger created by its arbitrary exercise.

In the case of Messrs. Vare and Smith it cannot be said that the Senate has exercised its power arbitrarily. It has, it is true, deprived two States of their equal representation in the Senate; but it has done so not without cause. The charges of illegal use of money in the primaries which nominated them are clearly concerned with the preservation of true representative government. In this case it is not only the excluded claimants who are on trial, but also the judgment of the Senate. Having decided that there was greater danger in appearing to condone corruption than in appearing to exercise its power without full warrant, the Senate must prove that it acted without partisanship and with foresight. After all, popular government rests upon the ability of the people to choose representatives whose judgment can be trusted.