We

One of the first duties of the incoming Administration will be to enter into a conference with other world Powers for the purpose of arriving at a better understanding among the civilized nations than any. which now exists. Mr. Harding has shown his wisdom in refusing to propose or to accept any definite plan for. an international fellowship. hope that his Administration will not repeat the error of its predecessor and go to the other nations with a prepared plan to be accepted or rejected without change. Whether the new plan is a substitute for the present League or such an amendment to the present League as removes the objections which it is now evident are not confined to America, whether it is Democratic or Republican, European or American, in its paternity, should be a matter of indifference. The one thing that is essential is that it should be adapted to present world conditions and fitted both to give effect to existing international public opinion and to create, develop, and guide that opinion for the future.

There are certain steps which can be taken now toward a better international fellowship; they can be taken now because they will carry into effect an international spirit which already exists and which demands with increasing urgency some better method of settling international disputes than war. But there is. another step implied, if not implicitly involved, in the constitution of the present League which cannot be taken now because there is now no international public opinion which calls for or would give effective support to such a step.

It is possible now to organize an international representative assembly, with stated meetings, to consider international themes, to discuss conflicting national interests, to compare differing national prejudices and so promote a better international understanding and create a developing international public opinion.

It may be both possible and desirable to improve the machinery and increase the facilities for the submission of certain classes of international controversies to arbitration. That the civilized nations are ready, and even eager, to substitute arbitration for war whenever possible is made evident by the fact that there are already twenty general arbitration treaties in existence.

An international supreme court could now be organized and put in operation. The plans for such a court have been perfected and published and have met with much approval and little opposition. Such a court, composed of distin

ished jurists, organized in order to

law to questions which can be solved by the application of legal principles, is radically different from a council of diplomats, each one bound in honor to pro mote the interests of his own nation and to make for the client whom he rep resents. the best bargain possible.

But there is no international public opinion which would justify giving to an international assembly legislative powers to be enforced by international sheriffs; or to an international court judicial power to summon before the bar a reluctant nation or enforce its judgment upon it by compulsory process; or to an international executive council the power to summon from the nations an international army, navy, or police to compel the fulfillment of the bargains which the representative diplomats had made.

It is possible that in the future there may be a federation of civilized nations like the federation of States in our Union, or a combination of states like the combination of states in the British Empire. Never is a long time; and we are not prepared to say that this can never be. But it is perfectly certain that there does not now exist an international public opinion which would sanction such a new creation or would make it effective if it were organized on paper. "All controversy," says the "ProLeague Republican," "as to Article X has, as we have seen, been eliminated by recent action at Geneva. Even the 'automatic' economic boycott as enjoined by Article XVI has been repudiated by numerous nations, who refuse to undertake the political and military responsibility, as to indefinite future crises." The Great Powers-Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan-have definitely refused to give the proposed court power to summon a defendant nation before it, and clearly would refuse

Portrait by Irving R. Wiles

J. FRANCIS MURPHY

to give it authority to enforce its decisions by an execution or a receivership. And the recent election in the United States, whatever else it meant, certainly meant this: that the American people will not give to any other nation or combination of nations the right to summon her sons to fight for a cause upon the justice of which she has not herself first had opportunity to pass judgment.

And they are right. Free government is government by public opinion. The police and the militia are for outlaws. Paper authority to a court or a council to call on the nations for an international army or navy to enforce its decrees would be useless. If there were no public opinion to sanction the call, the nations would not respond. If there were a public opinion to enforce the call, the nations would respond without a paper constitution. In a free nation the real support of law is the public opinion of the nation. In a world of free nations the real support of international law must be an international public opinion.

The first need of the hour is, not to provide an international police to enforce international law on the nations, but to create an international public opinion which will secure obedience to international law because the nations recognize the supreme claims of inter national justice.

J

THE PAYSAGE
INTIME"

OHN FRANCIS MURPHY is dead, and his loss will be immediately felt by all lovers of landscape painting. He was born in 1853 at Oswego, New York. He was self-taught. He exhibited his first pictures in 1876 at the National Academy, of which he was later to become an associate member. To-day his canvases may be found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, the Brooklyn Institute of Art, the Corcoran Gallery of Washington, the Carnegie Institute, Pittsburgh, the Art Institute in Chicago-to mention a few galleries which are the richer because of them.

For Murphy's are not canvases revealing merely adroit craftsmanship and leaving the imagination cold. A man of genuine feeling, he always had something to say.

In the next place, the significant thing about Murphy was that he chose to say it in what the French call the paysage intime-no great, general landscape, but a simplicity of theme, as shown in some "Weedy Bank," or "Sunny Slope," or "Upland Cornfield," or "October."

The impression conveyed was always one both of vitality and of repose. Mur

phy's point of view was judiciously taken, his picture was well put together, his composition was good, his color attractive, and there was always a sense of balance in his transcripts of scenery. There have been greater landscape painters than he, but in these days when in landscape, figure, and portrait painting the public taste tends towards a crude realism, one turns with relief to the Murphy paysages intimes.

LINCOLN AND PAUL,APOSTLES OF CHARITY

A

MICHIGAN reader of The Outlook writes us that, having "a fancy for knowing the day of the week upon which people are born, and having a file of old almanacs including one of the year 1809, I looked up the 12th of February and found that in that year Quinquagesima Sunday fell on that date. So when Prayer-Book folk everywhere were repeating the collect for the day and praying for 'that most excellent gift of charity,' and the wonderful thirteenth chapter of St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians was being read, Abraham Lincoln was born. I think it is a beautiful thing to know, and wish many might know it."

It is certainly at least a happy coincidence that Lincoln, the great modern apostle of charity, should have been born on a Sunday which is forever associated in the literature and worship of a great Church with the name of Paul, the foremost primitive apostle of charity. Paul says in the letter to which our co respondent refers:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. . . . Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."

And Lincoln in his second inaugural address uttered the memorable words:

"With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, and to do all which may achieve a just and lasting peace among all nations."

Good words these are, from both apostles, for encouragement and inspiration in the present crisis of world affairs.

A CHARACTERISTIC LANDSCAPE BY J. FRANCIS MURPHY

CHICAGO INVADES
NEW YORK

NE of the cardinal principles of
military science is that the best

offense consists of an attack. It works well in politics. Chicago evidently believes, with reason, that it can be applied to art. Does anybody question Chicago's musical culture? Why not let him go to Chicago and hear for himself? Chicago, however, prefers not to wait behind her musical entrenchments, but to resort to a more aggressive form of defense. So she marshals her musical forces and in magnificent array falls upon New York with all her picked musical troops-voice, string, wind, and percussion. On January 25 Chicago made an attack upon New York's musical public on both flanks, the Chicago Opera Company, under command of Mary Garden, securing a firm hold upon the Manhattan Opera House, on Thirty-fourth Street, and the Chicago Orchestra, led by Frederick Stock, securing a brilliant and conclusive victory on Fifty-seventh Street at Carnegie Hall.

It is impossible for even a war correspondent to be in two places at once.

All that we can recount here is the orchestra's engagement. That, however, alone was enough to prove that Chicago is a musical power of first rank.

When an orchestra makes a visit, the conductor is but human if he makes his programme with a view, not to its intrinsic musical merit, but to showing off the orchestra's paces. On this occasion Mr. Stock succeeded in arranging a programme which not only was a means of revealing the orchestra's resources but was also a balanced musical structure itself. There are many skilled conductors, but there are few skilled programme-makers. In these days when bow-scrapers and tube-blowers and skinpounders are amalgamated in musical unions and assume the prerogatives of laborers rather than the responsibilities of artists, it is hard to get rehearsals of sufficient length and frequency to supply an orchestra with a repertoire proportionate to the number of concerts it gives. The consequence is that the metropolitan orchestras fall back on compositions which have an immediate emotional effect and which through repetition in concerts need not crowd the limited periods for rehearsal. Thus conductors, restricted in their choice, more

than ever need to use what skill they have in programme-making. Mr. Stock is therefore to be particularly congratulated on his choice of compositions, which at once displayed the Chicago Orchestra's virtuosity and produced a musical effect of variety and coherence.

or

For the first number on the programme Mr. Stock selected Brahms's Third Symphony. When it is played as it was played that evening, this seems the greatest of the four. Years ago, while Brahms was still alive, Mr. Upton, in one of his books which have done much to develop musical taste in this country, wrote of this as the most popular of Brahms's symphonies. It is certainly not the most popular to-day. At least it seems to be played less frequently than even the Fourth and much less frequently than either the First Second. This perhaps is because it requires of both the conductor and the orchestra a wider range of musical sensibility and understanding. The First Symphony is a tragedy with a triumphant conclusion. The Second is an expression of serenity persisting through experiences of stress and storm. The Fourth presents life as an enigma, the solution of which is certain but not yet reached. In contrast to these three the Third Symphony envelops within itself the widest variety in experiences. Beginning with a downward-sweeping theme in which minor and major clash, the first movement of the symphony depicts life as a turbulent and enigmatic tragedy, relieved by periods of peace. The second movement reveals the strength of primitive symplicity and its persistence through most complex developments. The third movement, starting with a lyric mood, mounts to the heights of sorrow. And the closing

movement resolves these experiences in religious mysticism in which even the turbulence and perplexity of the beginning is recalled without regret. To say, as one critic at least has said, that this symphony is tiresome is simply a revelation of the critic's own limitations. There is no merit in advertising the fact that one does not care for Rembrandt. Any one who, after listening to Mr. Stock's interpretation of Brahms's Third Symphony, confesses that he was bored does nothing to increase an intelligent understanding of musical art. In bombarding Rheims the Germans rendered no convincing criticism of French Gothic. The rest of the programme levied no great tax upon the hearer's mental effort. Tschaikowsky's "Francesca da Rimini" is, like some other things that Tschaikowsky wrote, chiefly valuable as a vehicle for musical acrobatics. Tschaikowsky furnished the trapeze, and Mr. Stock and his orchestra did the stunts. The result was even more enthusiastic applause than is generally elicited at a circus. Then followed a composition of modern impressionism in the French idiom by the Irish composer Bax. It is called the "Garden of Fand." We believe it has a programme-that is, a verbal explanation of its meaning. Fortunately, we were negligent enough to fail in getting the explanatory description or the verbal poem in prose or verse which the music was supposed to interpret, and thus we were relieved of straining our mental eyesight by following on an imaginary screen an invisible motion-picture film. Bax's music needs no such accessory. It is interesting, even though over-sophisticated. The programme ended with a brilliant perform ance of Strauss's "Death and Transfiguration," the work of a genius who, try

Neither Herod, nor the chief priests, nor the scribes found Christ, and the Wise Men, who got no nearer to the Church or the sacraments or the Bible than King Herod, did find him. The moral of the story seems to me to be that "he that seeketh findeth," while he who is satisfied because he has the institutions of Christianity-the creeds, the sacraments, and the Bible-and seeks nothing more, does not find. I suggest this story to my correspondent to illustrate and enforce a sermon on the text, "Ye search the Scriptures, because in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." LYMAN ABBOTT.

THE "FLOWER OF

COURTESY "

EVERAL months ago a short article ap

SEVERAL mon nha Outlook ander the

title "Is Chivalry Dead?" written by a woman who evidently feels that it is dead, beyond all hope of revival.

What do we mean by chivalry? One of our standard dictionaries gives these definitions: "Disinterested courtesy," "The knightly system of feudal times, especially as marked by the championship of women." In "Little Women" Miss Alcott says, "The only chivalry worth having is that which is the readiest to pay deference to the old,

e issue for October 20, 1920. Since then *ters on the subject have been printed.

protect the feeble, and serve womankind."

The story of the Titanic is not too far back for most of us to recall. We remember how the man whose name was known on two continents and the man whose millions were invested on both continents alike gave way to the lowliest woman on the boat, because she was a woman. Suppose a great disaster were to overtake a vessel or an American city to-day. Do any of us doubt for one moment that our men would prove as noble to-day as they did on that fateful night in mid-ocean?

True, there may have been several males on board that vessel who were kept in restraint by the officers and crew; but if all, or even a majority, of the men had been selfish the officers

could not have controlled them. It is not just to ignore the ninety-nine chivalrous men and cite the case of the despicable one who proved craven.

I know what it means to meet with almost brutal rudeness. Some time ago, in a town where the "sweet flower of courtesy" has had small opportunity to bloom, as I stood waiting my turn to step into a trolley car, a young boor elbowed-yes, pushed-me aside and bounded into the car ahead of me, without one word of protest from the men around. In one of our large department stores a well-dressed man did a similar thing. Last winter I and an elderly woman friend stood for nearly an hour in the lobby of a crowded hotel while the comfortable chairs about us were filled with men smoking at their ease.

But it is not just to cite these as characteristic examples, ignoring the hundreds of beautiful courtesies that have been bestowed in the same period of time. I have found consideration and kindness so much the rule that when I tried to recall instances of rudeness I had to think for a while.

Then, too, are we women not in danger of overlooking our side of the question? We are the guardians of true chivalry fully as much as are the men. Chivalry, like love and all the finer virtues, is a delicate plant that cannot be cuffed into a hardy growth; it must be encouraged and cultivated. Some weeks ago a neighbor with whom I was united in campaign work discussed with me the behavior of some of the men toward some of the women workers. I agree with her that "the conduct of the man is largely determined by the behavior of the woman." If we expect courtesy, we must ourselves be courteous. It was Lincoln who said, "It is not much in the nature of man to be driven to do anything." The woman who sails through life with head held high, demanding attention, evokes little chivalry.

On the other hand, few men can resist being chivalrous if the appeal is made in the proper way. The same number of The Outlook that published the criticism which I am trying to answer contained this story of Lucretia Mott:

"At a New York City anti-slavery convention rioters broke up the meeting and roughly handled some of the speakers. Some of the women members of the convention were badly frightened. Mrs. Mott turned to her escort and said, 'Won't thee look after the others?' 'But who will take care of you?' The Quaker lady smiled sweetly. "This man will see me through,' she replied, putting her hand on the arm of one of the roughest of the mob. And he did, not only through the mob, but to the house where she was staying."

Sometimes we can best judge not only the future, but the present, by the past. I do not see how any one who has read the life of Susan B. Anthony or her co-workers can possibly feel that chivalry is on the wane. In her time men who stood high in the ministry and in the educational and the medical world were guilty of insults and abuse to women that would not now be tolerated by the lowest grade of American men that I have ever met. The laws pertaining to a woman's property rights or the possession of her own children were incredible as late as 1850. The more just laws since enacted indicate more just men.

Last winter I was in the business section of our town when two women, come for a forenoon's shopping, drove to a hitching post. As a nicely dressed girl stepped to the pavement I thought: "What a pity that she must go into the slush and grime to care for her horse. It doesn't look fitting." A darky coming up the street evidently thought the

same. With the easy manners of his race, he touched his cap and took the He tied and strap from her hand. blanketed the horse, helped the older woman out of the carriage, again touched his cap, and was gone.

Out in the country lately a farmer overtook me at the foot of a long hill I am fond of and offered me a ride. He hill walks, so I refused at first. looked at me in a perplexed way and said, "I can't abide to drive past a woman that's walking." I accepted the invitation.

Several months ago I sat at table with a cultured girl old enough to have sound judgment. She had been in "Y" work in France for more than a year, and had had interesting experiences. One day, in answer to a question from me, she said: "Mrs. Henry, I've seen our American boys in the leave areas, I've seen them wounded, and homesick, and cross, and drunk; I've seen them go into battle and I've seen them come out; and the more I see of them the more I think they're about the finest things God ever made." With which sentiment I am in hearty accord. also is Agnes Repplier when she says, "American chivalry, a strong article, and equal to anything Europe ever produced." KATHARINE HENRY.

I

CHIVALRY-A PHYSICAL

REASON

So

SUPPOSE you are being flooded with comments on that very admirable letter in your issue of December 1 entitled "Is Chivalry Dead?" Nevertheless I want to say a few words in connection with one of the difficult questions in paragraph 4, "Should an old man give his seat to a young woman?" Yes, if he gives it to any woman. When will the men understand that it is just the young women who need this special act of consideration? I am now in my sixtieth year, and often young girls offer me a seat, in deference, I suppose, to my gray hairs. I always accept, for I assume that they would not make the offer if they were unable to stand (in passing I would like to remark that I always say, "Thank you," out loud to man or woman). But I make it a rule always to give precedence to the younger woman when only one seat is available. I know that it will not hurt me to stand, while a girl of high school age might suffer seriously from a prolonged strain, especially if she is obliged to hold on by a strap. In some cars it is possible to steady one's self by the end of the seat.

My father once said in a public address that most of the weaknesses and ailments of womankind were connected more or less directly with maternity. This should appeal deeply to every son, and doubly so to every father. It is possible that The Outlook may consider this view of the subject more suited to a medical journal or a woman's magazine than to its columns. But the former would be read only by special

ists; and as to the latter, would any man be likely to see it? And it is the men who need enlightenment on this PHYSICIAN'S DAUGHTER. point.

Denver, Colorado.

WHY CHIVALRY?

HESE chivalrous (?) times are out of

joint, and, having waited in vain for some one to set them right, I am now constrained by G. E. A.'s naïve excuse for the men who "sit tight" in crowded cars to ask a question or two. Was not woman created from the beginning with less physical strength than man? Has not man as a right assumed the heavier physical burdens without considering it an act of chivalry? Isn't it conceded that man is and always has been so nurtured as to give him greater physical vigor than woman? Of course some unthinking persons of both sexes will cite instances to the contrary, but isn't this the rule?

Isn't it a fact that, while women have had their "rights" for a comparatively short time in any State, men have been voting for a century and a half, electing the authorities who make the laws and who grant franchises to common carriers who do not provide a seat for each fare paid? Then, granting these facts, if there is any standing to be done in cars, why should not the men be the ones to stand?

Railways provide special cars for men-as well as for all sorts of commodities and live stock-but make no provision for women; and the women, having pald the same fare as the men, and having no special cars provided, are permitted to stand while the men occupy the seats. Of course there are some women so silly as to refuse an offered seat, and others so ili bred that they fail to acknowledge the sacrifice of the man in relinquishing his seat, but these excuses are too trivial to be advanced by a man otherwise anxious to be "chivalrous." A railway conductor may argue that a ticket does not call for a seat, merely transportation; neither does it grant the privilege of smoking or having smoking cars, but what railway would have the temerity to run its trains without smoking cars?

What does a man think whose wife or mother is obliged to stand and be jostled about in a crowded car, while the man who sits in an office all day hides behind his morning or evening paper and sits tight? And do not women in general work as hard-at least in proportion to their strengthas the men? And how does the sitting man know that the standing woman "never lifts her finger for self-support or human service"?

And do the men who feel so uncomfortable retaining their seats in order to render the public a service do any thing to alleviate their discomfort in the way of compelling transportation companies to provide a seat for each passenger? W. H. Y.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.