lescents, the danger passed, we rush out and do exactly the things we know we should never do. I have spoken to sev

eral men and women who were at this fête; but they merely smiled. I could not make even a dent in their spiritual

consciousness. Yet I know that they must think now and then. Only, of what do they think? I wonder!"

L

ONDON is now preparing for the Imperial Conference, held there every five years, and only abandoned in 1916 because of the war. This Conference will touch the interests of the United States at many points, and I may explain, therefore, what it is and how it originated.

In the year 1884 British imperialism, which culminated in Kipling, was still a courtly and Tennysonian sentiment, and a League for Imperial Federation was started. Three years later Queen Victoria held her first Jubilee, and a consciousness of Empire was stimulated. The Prime Ministers of the Dominions, attending the festivities, also met for business; and the Conference, so inaugurated, was resumed in 1894, seven years later, at Ottawa. When the aged Queen held her Diamond Jubilee, in 1897, the Prime Ministers of the Dominions again, for a third time, conferred in London, under the forceful chairmanship of Joseph Chamberlain, then Colonial Secretary. Imperial federation was, however, set on one side as impracticable, mere distance preventing the effective attendance of overseas representatives in an imperialized Parliament at Westminster. It was decided, for the present, to hold Conferences of Dominion Ministers at about five-year intervals, and in 1902, 1907, and 1911 such meetings undoubtedly prepared the way for immediate cooperation by the Dominions and Britain, when war broke out in 1914. Mr. Chamberlain's scheme for preferential tariffs within the Empire was resisted by the Liberal and Labor parties and came to nothing.

The British Empire includes about 440,000,000 people, or more than onequarter of the human race. But, as General Smuts observes, it has ceased, while thus expanding, to be an Empire, and has become an alliance of widely diverse states-some essentially republican, others monarchist; some barbaric, others civilized; some of the East, and others of the West. The Conference, now to assemble, is thus really a league of nations, often of very differing aims and degrees of loyalty. The discussions will furnish material for much prophecy on the question whether, as time passes, the confederation will hold together or disintegrate.

Contrary to what is often supposed in the United States, the British Parliament imposes no taxation on the Dominions, nor indeed on India and the Crown Colonies, each of which territorial units has its own distinct Budget. From this

it follows that financial questions, like those which lost the American colonies to England, do not arise at the Conference. The Dominions are, however, much concerned over their status as sovereign countries and over their foreign relations, on which topics a word or two may be timely.

The Imperial Parliament, sitting at Westminster and elected wholly by voters within the United Kingdom, has never surrendered its prerogative to leg islate for the whole British Empire. It is a prerogative actually convenient for the Dominions, for it was the Imperial Parliament that gave to Australia, South Africa, and Canada the admirable Constitutions under which these countries have achieved first their unity and. then nationhood. But with each Dominion or Commonwealth, now peacefully governed by a Parliament of its own, any attempt from London to legislate on domestic issues in a Dominion, or on any issue affecting the Dominion, except as the Dominion consents, would lead at once to a crisis, and, in the opinion of Mr. Newton Rowell, the representative of Canada on the League of Nations, to a revolution. The suzerainty of the Imperial Parliament continues, therefore, only as a characteristic English device, whereby things can be done for the Empire which everybody wants done; but on no part of the self-governing Empire can there be compulsion. If, then, a bill for Canada is passed at Westminster, it is because Canada has thus made petition.

You ask why the Dominions do not simplify their status by "cutting the painter" and assuming independence. In South Africa elections are in prospect on this very issue, and if General Smuts were defeated by the combination of Labor and Dutch Nationalists, which so nearly defeated General Botha, the position might become highly interesting. The reason for the British connection is not, as some imagine, sentimental. At Geneva the Dominions found that they could speak with an authority even in opposition to Britain, which amazed independent countries of similar wealth and population. Within the Empire the Dominions are among the Great Powers. But outside the Empire they are as yet only among the smaller Powers. They know that England makes mistakes, suffers for them, and is at the moment hard hit, but they also know that for

1 Since this was written General Smuts won an impressive victory, a sign that South Africa does not want to "cut the painter."-The Editors.

A

any nation England's friendship is still an asset.

Full sovereignty within the Empire is none the less a little difficult to define. Mr. Newton Rowell says that the Dominions now enjoy an equal sovereign status with Britain, only with the same sovereign. A parallel would be Austria and Hungary during the Dual Monarchy or Hanover and England under the Georges. The Conference will have to decide whether this phrase-equal sovereign status-is to be translated into facts, and I will show what the facts would be. Hitherto the Dominions have dealt with London through the Colonial Office. In other words, they are assigned to the department which also "governs" Sierra Leone. To ease matters, the Colonial Office, by means of glass partitions, as it were, subdivided itself into slightly separate departments for Dominions and Crown Colonies; but the Dominions want now to deal with an authority on a level with their own-a separate Dominions Office in London, or the Privy Council, or the Prime Minister himself. They think that in Conference no one less than a Prime Minister should preside over Prime Ministers, and they are restive over the appointment of Mr. Churchill to be Colonial Secretary partly because they fear his vigorous initiative and partly because they desire no rehabilitation of his office in Downing Street.

Some Canadians are also agitated over the appeal which can still be made from the Dominion courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, which there corresponds, roughly, to the Supreme Court of the United States. In many cases this appeal gives an advantage to litigious wealth, while it reflects on the competence of Canadian tribunals. On the other hand, the Law Lords, sitting in London, include the best brains of the Empire. Their judgments are admittedly great and final verdicts on the Constitution. They despatch their business without vexatious delays and with a deep sense of responsibility. On large issues, affecting provinces and municipalities and railways, there are obvious advantages in such detached arbitration, and even in the United States legal opinion takes into account whatever English precedents there may be for a point in question.

Canada is much exercised also over the pending appointment of her Governor-General, whom she now regards as a kind of Ambassador from England, with no more power of veto over the Parliament at Ottawa than King Georg.

has, in practice, over the Parliament at Westminster. Hitherto the GovernorGeneral has been recommended to the King by the British Government, his constitutional advisers. Canada now insists that her own Government also must be "consulted," and she has turned down several names, including that of the Earl of Athlone, brother to Queen Mary. From "consultation" to actual "recommendation" is but a short step, and some Canadians appear to be determined to secure the right of direct access to the throne, whatever be the "advice" of British Ministers. This means that the King would be separately "advised" by each self-governing Dominion, a form of multi-monarchy, to be watched with sympathy!

Finally, the Dominions are faced for the first time by foreign relations of their own. For Australia the one international question is Asiatic immigration, whether from India or Japan, and what

Australia asks of British diplomacy is an agreement with the United States in the Pacific. Such an agreement, already a fact in all but a formal sense, is desired by Canada, but the British Foreign Office has also to consider India and Japan. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance contains a reservation which excludes the possibility of conflict between Britain and the United States, but, even so, it is embodied in a Treaty the renewal of which would inevitably alienate the Dominions. Canada and Australia-especially the former-have both asserted the right, if necessity should arise, of accrediting their own Ministers to the United States Government at Washington, and seventy-five per cent of the business transacted by the British Embassy in Connecticut Avenue is Canadian. Britain has so frankly conceded these claims, including, as they do, separate consulates or trade representation, that Canada, having gained her

point in theory without a struggle, asks herself why she should spend money on diplomatists, who will do her work no better, after all, than it is done today, and may have to do it, in the long run, under less favorable conditions. Still, there was some trouble lately over the Dominion's right to conclude with France a separate treaty about wines, and if the St. Lawrence were canalized or Niagara developed further, one can imagine very close negotiations proceeding between the United States directly and her northern neighbor.

Having fought in the war and lost both men and money in the Allied cause, the Dominions are looking at the future with new eyes, and the Conference now pending must be regarded, therefore, as a momentous landmark in the history of nations. P. W. WILSON.

American Office of the London "Daily News," New York.

SMALL TOWNS AND SMALL FOLK

M

R. PULSIFER has given us his pronouncement on the movies.

Mr. Fuessle has replied. Each has presented the matter from his own angle. Now may we look at the matter from the standpoint of a mother, or of many mothers, with children of school age?

Let us look first at Mr. Pulsifer's angle. I take his criticism to mean this: That the movie trade, invention, profession, whatever it is called, has had the most glorious opportunity given to it that the world has ever known and that it has wasted that opportunity; thrown it away with both hands.

Mr. Fuessle replies from the producer's angle, the money-making angle, and proves that, so judged, the movies are a success. What do the mothers think?

If you have retired to the country to raise your family and live near a small town, you will find that the movies loom larger than you ever dreamed they could. If you try to put a ban on them, you place them at once in the category of forbidden sweets, than which there is nothing sweeter. So you take the middle course and watch the announcements and go when the play is one of a story you know or when the star is one whom it is safe to trust. What happens? Before the real play begins you are treated, or maltreated, to some hideous farce of the slap-stick variety with sometimes questionable morals or at least containing examples of great vulgarity. The idea of humor is so warped that it nearly splits into splinters. A great many explosions, tumbling from windows, loss of clothing, exploiting of bedrooms, and similar episodes make up the most of these farces which have no plot and no meaning. When the real ay begins, you are ready to leave in gust. If you stay, you are constantly oyed by the overacting of the players.

THE MOVIES

You cannot see why it is necessary to screw one's face into knots in order to register surprise or anger or horror. Nor why the actors seem to have so little knowledge of the ways of polite society. To see one star pour tea for a few friends is enlightening in that it reveals the ignorance of the star in matters social. Are there no gentlewomen in the movies? One would scarcely think so. Or do the directors insist on overemphasizing these facial expressions, fearing lest the intelligence of the audience will not be able to grasp the idea presented? And if they do not know social customs in polite society, why not hire some one to instruct them? There are many gentlewomen who act as professional chaperons; why not secure one to coach the stars?

Nor is Mr. Fuessle's statement that it takes a million of money, six months of time, and a great deal of lumber, not to mention many actors, to produce a popular play soon to appear, an argument capable of convincing us that this play will be a work of art, or even a masterpiece of the film world. The breweries and distilleries of the country are larger and cost more and have been at their work longer, but if they have produced anything of beauty the world has yet to hear of it. Mere size or quantity does not make art. That good pictures have been produced we know. It is this knowledge which is at once so discouraging and so encouraging. Because it has been done it is saddening not to see it done all the time. Because it has been done it gives us hope that it will be done more and more until the unfit is relegated to limbo.

I think I must range myself on the side of Mr. Pulsifer. As the case stands now, the movies are the world's worst failure because they have not lived up to their splendid opportunity. But in this case Opportunity knocks again, and

they have only to unbolt the door and let her in. I. C. MANN.

I

WANTED, WHOLESOME AMUSEMENT HAVE read "The World's Worst Failure," by Harold T. Pulsifer, and this greatest of failures is announced by Mr. Pulsifer to be the movies.

My home is in a small country town where in the winter we depend mostly on the birds (besides a few friends) for society. Adjoining our town is a factory town of several hundred people. In this town there are only two families who do not toil from morning until night in this factory. Many families - father, mother, and children-go to their work together. In my town we are fortunate enough to have a fine large hall, well ventilated and thoroughly comfortable, belonging to one of the more prosperous lodges. In this hall a certain enterprising citizen is giving movies each Wednesday and each Saturday night. I have availed myself of this opportunity for amusement on several occasions. And it is about the last occasion (because it is still fresh in my mind) that I wish to tell you. "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm” was advertised to be given on a certain Wednesday night in January. Perhaps it was because I live several miles from the village, perhaps it was because I have an old-fashioned way of liking to watch people come and catch snatches of picturesque conversation, but, whatever the cause, I arrived twenty minutes before the time scheduled for the programme to begin. When, lo! the hall was packed. Only about five empty seats remained in the back row. I slipped into one, and in less than two minutes others had slipped into the remaining ones. And still they came. The first picture thrown on the screen was of a cotton field, the colored people gathering the cotton. We were then taken through a factory and shown all

of the different processes until the cotton came out prints, muslins, and ginghams. Then came the so-called funny pictures. A very bad boy, a sort of a "Peck's Bad Boy," continually getting into precarious positions and his miraculous escapes held us quite spellbound. Then came the play.

All the way through ran fun, pathos, and excitement. As I sat in the last row, I was one of the first out. But my - curiosity held me. I stood at the door and watched this mass of people file out. And this is what I saw-family after family, father, mother, and children, old men and old women, young girls and young boys, all with a less tired expression than they had when they went in. And I thought as I stood there, "What a blessing to mankind are the movies!" Many now will rise up and say, "But the movies are not all like that." I, in my turn, demand why are they not all like that? The movies have come to stay. I believe that it is up to each community to demand and fight for good movies. It is up to each public-spirited person. It is our responsibility.

MOVIES AND MANNERS

E. H. S.

EADING your moving-picture articles in the issues of The Outlook for January 19 and 26 inclines me to cast in my lot with Harold Trowbridge Pulsifer as against the apologist, Newton A. Fuessle, and to vote that the movies are "the world's worst failure."

Have you not, Mr. Editor, often wondered from what walk of life the scenario writer is drafted by the producers of our movie plays? Leaving out of the reckoning the changes and other liberties which are taken with the framework of the "best sellers," or the equally awful rendering of the popular plays transferred from the acting stage, what a queer medley we find when an original presentation is served up for our delectation! A young gentleman who is denied admittance by the butler climbs into the heroine's residence through a window and presents himself in the drawing-room unabashed and unafraid; and such unconventionality seems to excite no astonishment or adverse comment upon the part of Mr. or Mrs. Dives or of the adored member of their household. Young ladies presumably occupying recognized stations of eminence in the most exclusive circles address their conversation to young men at casual meetings without the formality of an introduction; and I shudder when a youth and maiden are left unchaperoned for the briefest moment, for I know an ardent declaration or worse is staged for immediate transaction before our astonished (I had almost said our blushing) gaze. I would fain subscribe to a fund to send these scenario writers through a course of "First Aid to the Socially Uncultured" as a condition precedent to their continuing at their tasks.

Mr. Fuessle is brutally frank; but I thank him for the short cut which he has taken to the goal he has sought to

attain. If we concede his point and admit the movie stage as now conducted is merely a large industry, and "the object of a large industry is not art, but profit," why there is an end of the matter. It behooves the American people to look about them and evolve some system that can at least produce negative results can cease to degrade, if it does not elevate, that department of the stage which supplies entertainment for so

WINNERS OF PRIZES
IN THE OUTLOOK'S
CONTEST NO. 1

FIRST PRIZE, $50
Won by

HOWARD MURRAY JONES,
1822 Chadbourne Avenue, Madison, Wis.
SECOND PRIZE, $30
Won by

REV. WM. HARRIS GUYER, A.M., D.D.,
President Findlay College, Findlay, Ohio

*THIRD PRIZE, $20
Won by

MRS. JAMES B. DRAPER,
Oswego, Kansas

*THIRD PRIZE, $20
Won by

MRS. ALICE E. CATE,

11 Oak Street, Belmont, Mass.
*Mrs. Draper and Mrs. Cate tied for third place.
Instead of dividing the third prize of $20 be-
tween these two contestants, the judges decided
to award them each a full third prize of $20
The four prize-winning letters will
be published in next week's issue

of The Outlook, together with a
running story of the contest

Following are the names and addresses of
contestants whose letters were unusually
interesting. Some of these letters will be
published in coming issues of The Outlook
BEERS, Mrs. G. H., Auburn, N. Y.
BERGSTRESSFR, F. L., Montgomery, Pa.
BIGELOW, MAY THORPE, Washington, D.C.
COOK, Mrs. G. L., Basil, Ohio
DENNY, CORAL, Buffalo, Wyo.
ELY, Rev. J. B., Greeneville, Tenn.
EVANS, Mrs. MORRIS, Pipestone, Minn.
FORTUNE, GERTRUDE, Los Angeles, Cal.
GAINES, Rev. D. P., Waterbury, Conn.
HALL, F. A., Chancellor of Washington
University, St. Louis, Mo.
HARING, H. A., Tampa, Fla.
HILARY, F. A., Swarthmore, Pa.
HODGES, W. H., Richardson Park, Del.
HUDSON, BLANCHE H., Boston, Mass.
INNESS, GEORGE, Jr., Tarpon Springs, Fla.
KETCHAM, M. B., Indianapolis, Ind.
LANE, E. A., H. dale, N. J.
MACKIN, Mrs. MARGARET, Roxbury, Mass.
MCDONALD, PHILIP B., Assistant Professor
of English, New York University, N. Y.
MURKIN, J. A., Franklin, Pa.
NICHOLSON, J. C., Los Angeles, Cal.
OTIS, CLARA PAINE, White Plains, N. Y.
RICHARDSON, WEBSTER, Los Angeles, Cal.
SAINT-AMOUR, GEORGE, "The Plain
Dealer," Cleveland, Ohio
SCHWAB, B. T., Denver, Col.
SILVER, MILDRED, Marquette, Mich.
WHITE, EDWARD S., Harlan, Iowa
WINTLER, HENRY H., Los Gatos, Cal.
WOOD, A. L., Jacksonville, Ill.

large a portion of our more than 100,000,000 souls. RICHARD S. HARVEY.

NOW WE KNOW HOW THEY DO IT IN JAPAN

NINEMA industry in Japan is also one of the main industries in the country like in America. Difference between the two is, while the latter has reached at the highest point of the development in motion picture industry, the former is yet on its way of progress.

At present, there are about fifteen motion picture concerns in this country, but the noteworthy one are limited to the following five namely Japan Cinematograph Co., Shochiku-Kinema, Universal's Japan Branch, Kokusai-Kinema (this one is now on its verge of collapse) and Taisho-Katsuei.

Unlike that of America, all the chief companies in Japan undertake the both sides of picture-making and picture-exhibiting owning its own studio and theater. Of the whole amount of about seven hundreds of the theaters in Japan, its half number are under the power of Japan Cinematograph Co.; since this one is the most foremost moving picture company with its capital of $3,000,000.

In making of the picture. there are three currents: firstly the production of Japanese Old School Drama (treating the historical matters with samurai, harakiri, daimyo, shogun and etc.) secondly that of New School Drama (dealing with today's Japanese life), thirdly that of New Era Drama (aiming to entertain the intellectual audience). And while Japan Cinematograph Co. produces all the three kinds of the picture, Shochiku and Taisho are only trying to make thirdly one.

Every company is cherishing the ambition to cultivate a wide market for their thirdly production in foreign lands, chiefly in America. But the producing efforts for the thirdly picture are the very much latest one and every company's every production in the line has been proved all failure.

On the other hand, in exhibiting the picture there are also two policies. One policy is the showing of the home-made pictures only, while the other is foreign pictures exclusively. And the latter policy has been always more profitable than the former. Shochiku-Kinema, TaishoKatsuei and Universal's Japan Branch are severely suffering from the lack of the picture-theatres; Universal making the most unfortunate figure cherishing many pictures and having very few theatres.

The most welcomed pictures during the last year in Japan were: De Mille's "Man and Female," "Whispering Chorus," "For Better For Worse," Von Stroheim's "Blind Husbands," "Devil's Pass-Key," Fitzmourice's "Common Clay," "On With the Dance," Keenan's "Bells" (his "World's Aflame" imported but its performance suppressed by the governmental authority), Priscilla Dean's "Virgin of Stamboul," William Farnum's "Le Miserable," Nazimova's "Red Lantern," and the German Film "Veritas Vincit." HIDEO KOUCHI,

No. 226, Shimoshibuya, Tokio, Japan