the Treaty already made among the European Powers shall not be lost by them, and that the necessary changes be made by changing the terms of that Treaty rather than by beginning entirely anew.

That Mr. Harding is willing to follow this course is indicated in his speech of August 28:

If, in the failed League of Versailles, there can be found machinery which the [Hague] tribunal can use, properly and advantageously, by all means let it be appropriated.

I

would take and combine all that is good and excise all that is bad from both organizations [the League and the Court]. This statement is broad enough to include the suggestion that if the League . . . has been so entwined and interwoven into the peace of Europe that its good must be preserved in order to stabilize the peace of that continent, then it can be amended or revised so that we may still have a remnant of the world's aspirations of 1918 builded into the world's highest conception of helpful co-operation in the ultimate realizations.

A RESTATEMENT OF

SENATOR HARDING'S POSITION
N his recent speeches Mr. Harding

speech of August 28. He has also reiterated another statement then made:

I have said repeatedly that, when elected, I will immediately summon the best minds in America. . . to. consult and advise as to America's relationship to the present association of nations, to modifications of it or substitutes for it. . . . I repeat now that this will be my course and it will be taken by me because it represents the American spirit and because it is the only lawful and appropriate course that a President should take.

To this he added the other day in Indianapolis:

I am for co-operation among nations. . . . America must take her part in the world's affairs. . . . But we hold there is no need of an American surrender of sovereignty to play a righteous nation's part.

This may well answer the plea from Cox supporters that American "honor" is involved if we do not support in its entire substance the existing League of Nations. Who, above all, says our "honor" is already involved? The President. But he also said to the people of Europe that he had a mandate from the people of America. He had no such mandate. He signed a Covenant for a League of Nations concerning the provisions of which the American people had no chance to express their opinion by their votes. They now have such a chance. Whatever may be said in adverse criticism of other provisions, the provision which is, as the President

says, the "heart of his Covenant," is Article X: To claim, as its upholders do, that this Article does not touch the prerogative of Congress with regard' to the legal right of declaring war is to beg the question. Moral right overrides legal right, as the President admitted to Senator Harding at the one official discussion between the Executive and the Senate.

In his Indianapolis speech the other day Mr. Harding did well to call public attention to this distinction. He showed

Sykes in the Buffalo Commercial

THRILLING, ISN'T IT?

that were we signers of the present Covenant, no matter how Congress might wish to act in any particular case, it could in no case disregard the Nation's pledged faith without sacrificing National honor.

But we are not signers of such a Covenant. We are not, as the speaker concluded, "called on to mortgage America to keep faith with mankind."

A QUESTION AND AN ANSWER

18 President Wilson

O'directed inquiries both to Senator

Harding and to the French Government as to the Republican candidate's statement at Greencastle, Indiana, that he had been informally approached by a representative of France who asked that the United States lead the way to a world fraternity. The President added:

I need not point out to you the grave and extraordinary inferences to be drawn from such a statementnamely, that the Government of France, which is a member of the League of Nations, approached a private citizen of a nation which is not a member of the League with a request "that the United States lead the way to a world fraternity."

This astonishing step by the President of course resulted in an immediate

reply from Mr. Harding, from which we quote the following:

It is very gratifying that you hesitate to draw inferences without my assurance that I am correctly quoted. The quotation as reported in your letter is not exact. The notes of the stenographer, reporting my remarks quote me as saying: "France has sent her spokesmen to me informally, asking America in its new realization of the situation to lead the way for an association of nations."

I am sure that my words could not be construed to say that the French Government has sent anybody to me. The thought I was trying to convey was that there had come to me those who spoke a sentiment which they represented to be very manifest among the French people, but nothing could suggest the French Government having violated the proprieties of international relations. Official France would never seek to go over your high office as our Chief Executive to appeal to the American people, or any portion thereof.

I can see no impropriety in private citizens of France, or in Americans deeply friendly to France, expressing to me their understanding of sentiment in that friendly Republic.... Let me assure you again of the observance of all the proprieties and again assert that the French Government has maintained that great respect for your position to which I myself subscribe.

The whole affair is of importance only as an indication of Mr. Wilson's mental processes.

DOUBTFUL SENATORIAL
STATES

ANY people concede Mr. Harding's election and believe it practically certain that the House of Representatives will be Republican. But no such prediction may be made of the Senate.

At present that body has a nominal Republican majority of two. But one of the two is absent on charges-Mr. Newberry; and another-Mr. La Follette is of little Republican comfort. If the Republican party is to control the National Government, the tide for the ticket must sweep along with it the Republican Senatorial candidates in the doubtful States. These States are: Arizona Indiana Ohio California Kentucky South Dakota Colorado Maryland Utah Idaho

Missouri Wisconsin

In Arizona Ralph H. Cameron, Republican, opposes the present sitting member, Marcus A. Smith. Mr. Smith's pro-Wilsonism may turn the election to Mr. Cameron's favor in a normally Democratic State.

In California Samuel Shortridge, Republican, opposes the present Senator, James D. Phelan, Democrat. Mr. Phelan, personally popular with all par

ties, has done a good deal for Calfornia in legislation. Mr. Shortridge, a "regular," defeated William Kent, a radical, at the primaries.

In Colorado Carl Schuyler, Republican, opposes the able Charles S. Thomas, the former Senator, who is standing, not as a Democrat, but as a "Nationalist;" also Tully Scott, the "regular" Democratic candidate. The Colorado Democratic organization, like that in Montana, has suffered from the Non-Partisan wave.

In Idaho Frank R. Gooding, Republican and former Governor of the State, who has once been defeated by John F. Nugent, Democrat, for the Senate, is now again facing him.

In Indiana James E. Watson, Republican, the present sitting member, is being opposed by the Democratic "boss" and ex-Senator, Thomas Taggart.

In Kentucky Richard P. Ernst, Republican, faces Senator J. C. W. Beckham, and is encouraged by the large vote given last year to Mr. Morrow, the Republican Governor of the State.

In Maryland O. F. Weller, Republican, is running against the present member, John Walter Smith, Democrat. The Negro vote may be the deciding factor in the situation.

the present efficient Senator, Irvine L. Lenroot, Republican, over Paul Reinsch, late Ambassador to China, has become uncertain through the entry into the lists of James Thompson, a La Follette "bitter-ender."

In other States the situation has become increasingly "mixed." For instance, in supposedly "rock-ribbed " Iowa even so able and experienced a Senator as is Mr. Cummins, Republican, has had to call for the personal presence of the Presidential candidate

have succeeded in capturing the Democratic party of Montana. . . . The Non-Partisan League and its affiliated forces of radicalism have succeeded in securing the Democratic nominations on the State ticket, with one exception, for their adherents.

The "one exception" is the Democratic candidate for Attorney-General. The rest of the ticket should be Republican, asserts the Senator, in order to accomplish the defeat of Bolshevist Government.

Mr. Myers especially praised the qualifications of ex-Senator Joseph M. Dixon, the Progressive leader in 1912 and now Republican candidate for Governor. There are still factions in the Republican party of Montana, as Mr. Myers adds, but he urges that Republicans forget their grievances and unite in their support of Mr. Dixon. Certainly it is time, Senator Myers concludes, "for the decent, respectable people of Montana to lay aside all factional and partisan considerations and unite to save the State from the riot of Socialism, high taxation, misgovernment, and ruin."

Mr. Myers, whose term does not expire till 1923, has no occasion now to seek re-election; so his statement can hardly be interpreted as a bid for votes.

MISSOURI AND OTHERS

N Missouri Selden P. Spencer, of St. Louis, Republican and at present Senator, has as his opponent Breckenridge Long, recently Third Secretary of State. Mr. Spencer's disclosures concerning American assurances at the Paris Peace Conference may affect his chances favorably; on the other hand, Republican "machine" dissensions may affect them unfavorably.

In Ohio Frank B. Willis, Republican and former Governor, is being opposed by W. A. Julien, of Cincinnati, for the succession to Senator Harding's seat. Optimists look to Governor Willis's success as the natural first fruit of a Harding victory.

In South Dakota Peter Norbeck, Republican and Governor of the State, has as his opponent U. S. G. Cherry, an energetic campaigner. The State is normally Republican.

In Utah Reed Smoot, Republican

Courtesy of Charles Scribner's Sons

HUDSON STUCK

himself. On the other hand, in Oregon, another Republican State, the unique popularity of Mr. Chamberlain, Democrat, the present member, is being vigorously assailed by his Republican opponent, Robert F. Stanfield. Mr. Chamberlain's case is certainly remarkable. Nominated a dozen years ago by a State-wide non-partisan primary, he was elected and re-elected by Republican Legislatures. His constituency, Democrats claim, includes no less than a hundred thousand Republicans.

AN INDEPENDENT DEMOCRAT
IN MONTANA TO THE FORE

ENRY LEE MYERS, United States

cratic opponent, Mr. Manning, a real antagonist. Though with liberals Mr. Smoot's dogged "regularity" militates against him, his great knowledge of economics and of legislative proceedings has given much alarm to his colleagues lest they lose him.

In Wisconsin the expected victory of

pudiated the State and Congressional candidates in Montana on the Democratic slate and has called upon other Democrats to do likewise.

In a statement to the electors of Montana Senator Myers says:

A band of political pirates, Socialists, and, in some cases, Bolsheviki,

MISSIONARY AND EXPLORER

A

RCHDEACON HUDSON STUCK died. recently at Fort Yukon, Alaska. His name is best known to the general public as that of the first explorer to set foot on the top of Mount McKinley, and incidentally to disprove the claims to that exploit made by Dr. Cook, of Arctic memory. Really his life of missionary work in Alaska was one long record of daring, travel, and hardship. He drove many thousands of miles by dog-sleds-probably at least twenty thousand miles-to and fro over his vast parish. He was a man of marvelous endurance and pertinacity. The church work he built up in the Far North will be his best memorial. It added materially to the development of Alaska. As we pointed out in commenting on Dr. Stuck's book called "Ten Thousand Miles with a Dog Sled," he knew the Indian and the Eskimo as a country clergyman knows his parishioners, and he helped them fight their worst enemies-whisky and tuberculosis. Together with Bishop Rowe he built up in Alaska missions and churches which are a high honor to the Protestant Episcopal Church.

Hudson Stuck was vigorous, manly, and energetic. His books reflect these qualities, and are among the most pictur

Keystone View Co.

SEN

ENSATIONAL headlines in the newspapers of October 14 shocked many readers into the fear that the United States Marines in Haiti had been guilty of indiscriminate cruelties which would have disgraced even the German occupiers of Belgium.

These headlines were based upon a report of conditions in Haiti made public by the Navy Department. Promptly upon the publication of excerpts from this report The Outlook telegraphed to the Navy Department for the complete statement. Up to the moment of going to press this statement has not yet been received. The Outlook remembers the time when a request from a responsible journal to a department of the Government for information of public importance was always promptly heeded. We do not know in the present instance whether we are indebted to the Navy Department or the Post Office Department for the delay.

Caution is necessary in the consideration of such charges as have been made. We are naturally reluctant to base any conclusions upon excerpts from a report which we have not seen in its entirety. It seems safe to say, however, that there has been maladministration in certain isolated districts in

Haiti which has resulted in the imposition of forced labor upon the natives contrary to the letter of the Haitian law and the spirit of American institutions. Certain officers of the Marine Corps in Haiti and of the gendarmerie, which has been under the authority of the Marine Corps, appear to have been guilty of unjustified killing.

During the five years of the United States occupation of Haiti it is estimated that 3,250 Haitians have been killed, while one officer of the Marine Corps and twelve enlisted men have been killed, and two officers of the Marine Corps and twenty-six enlisted men were wounded in action. More than half of the Haitians killed died in an attack on Port-au-Prince after its

occupation by American troops. During part of our occupation actual war has existed, and during the whole time bushwhacking by bandits has never ceased in parts of the island.

T

When the United States went into the Philippines, acts of individual cruelty and acts of oppressive maladministration actually took place. At that time. The Outlook took the position that the administration of the Philippines should not be condemned in toto because of the acts of individuals unless it could be shown that these acts were connived at by those in authority and that no effort was made to punish the offenders. The history of our occupation of the Philippines showed that the American Government took every step possible to prevent the recurrence of outrages and to expedite the punishment of those who were guilty of them.

There is every indication that the Navy Department is ready and willing to go to the bottom of the charges against any officers of the Marine Corps who may have been guilty of oppression or outrage. They will be promptly court-martialed and punished. Secretary Daniels has ordered a Court of Inquiry, consisting of Admiral Henry T. Mayo, former Commander-in-Chief of the Atlantic Fleet, Admiral James H. Oliver, and Brigadier-General Joseph H. Pendleton, of the United States Marine Corps. The caliber of the men named on this Court is a guaranty that the inquiry will be thoroughly and faithfully conducted. The Outlook certainly recommends that its readers withhold judgment upon the Haitian situation until the findings of this Court are published.

TO THE UNCERTAIN

VOTER

IVER since the Civil War I have been an Independent in politics.

Ε

E been an Independeat in politics.

In National elections I have generally voted the Republican ticket; in local elections rarely a straight ticket. Ever since 1895 I have been an advocate of a League of Nations, and am so still. In this article I aim to put before the uncertain voter two considerations which have led me, an Independent and an advocate of a League of Nations, to vote for Mr. Harding in the ensuing election.

I. The election is not between Mr. Cox and Mr. Harding, but between the parties which they respectively represent. We have to bring this country, and to co-operate with other countries in bringing the world, back to a peace basis. There are National problems as well as international problems with which our Government will have to deal. They are such as the true function of a free government, the regulation of immigration, how to get back from extravagant war prices to reasonable peace prices, and from burdensome taxes to reasonable taxes, and the various phases of our industrial problem.

On November 2 we, the people of the United States, are to give a power of attorney to deal with these problems for the next four years. The Paris League of Nations is the most dramatic, but I am far from sure that it is the most important, of them. Shall we give the power of attorney to the party of Jefferson or of Hamilton, of Buchanan or of Lincoln, of Bryan or of McKinley? These leaders represented two groups of parties of differing temperaments and tendencies. To which of these parties does the uncertain voter prefer to trust the administration of the government in the present crisis? I do not anticipate that either party will completely satisfy me. But my traditions, my temperament, and perhaps my prejudices, lead me to prefer the Republican party. Of the two it is less prolific in captivating phrases, but it seems to me to have been characterized by more constructive statesmanship.

II. By Article X the Paris League promises to preserve the territorial boundaries of all its members, and the advocates of the League believe that it will insure the peace of Europe. Its critics point to the fact that it has not been able to preserve the boundaries of all its members nor even to determine what they are, and that since its formation frightful European wars have been and still are being waged. They therefore declare that it is wholly inefficient.

This objection appears to me reasonable. But history leads me to regard the Paris League as very dangerous if it were to become efficient. In the control of unscrupulous hands and misdirected, it would easily become dangerous both to the liberty and to the peace of Europe.

Prior to the French Revolution absolute despotism had prohibited all freedom of action, speech, or even thought throughout the Continent of Europe. The Napoleonic wars overthrew some of those despotisms and imperiled the others. A League of Nations was formed to protect them from the arms of Napoleon, and defeated him. But this League of Nations, victorious in 1815, did nothing to preserve liberty or establish peace. It put back autocrats on the thrones of France, Spain, and Italy, and established those already on the thrones of Germany, Austria, and Russia. France, Spain, and Italy recovered liberty only by successful revolutions; in Germany, Austria, and Russia the old military autocracy has at last been overthrown by the Great War, but liberty has not yet been established. Both Germany and Italy have become nations-Germany united by a military alliance and under a military government, Italy united by a national sentiment, a love of liberty, and under a free government. An article in a recent number of the Literary Supplement of the London "Times" indicates effectively the contrasts in results between the statesmanship of Bismarck and the statesmanship of Cavour :

A brand-new scheme of efficiency, misdirected by want of human sympathy, may cause far worse sorrow to the race of man than a good-natured Italian shrug of the shoulders to apologize for a train that is not quite up to time. If we compare the moral and intellectual positions of Germany and Italy a hundred years ago, we shall be inclined to say that the risorgimento has done far more good to Italy than Bismarckism has done to Germany. The Italy that broke Leopardi's heart was on a level with Spain. The Germany that Goethe led was, in all save politics, on a level with France and England. Morally and intellectually Germany lost more than she gained by the ideas which in the end brought about her unity. The Bismarckian doctrine denied liberty, and made man and his intellect the mere servants of an autocratic state, in return for very real material advantage. The Italian risorgimento, on the other hand, called on the individual to sacrifice his life for his country, but not his thought, his individuality, or his conscience.

I cannot but think that the statesmanship of Cavour is a safer guide for America to follow than the statesmanship of Bismarck; that America will

do better to use her influence in developing an international public opinion which will unite the civilized nations by a common thought and a common purpose, though that will require time, than to use her influence in creating an international alliance which will bind the nations together by military manacles, although that would be more expeditious.

Professor John B. Clark, in two notable addresses delivered in successive years-1898-9-at the Lake Mohonk Arbitration Conference, pointed out certain forces which were unconsciously creating an international public opinion and making for international peace. Among these forces are the union of labor, the development of trade and commerce, the creation of commercial organizations extending beyond national boundaries, immigra tion, a great increase of travel, the broad education in the higher schools of learning in all nations, the abatement of religious prejudices, and the gradual abatement of race prejudices.

The Hague Court and the Hague Conference have already done something to organize public opinion. A permanent International Court authorized to decide such disputes as may be submitted to it, and so build up a recognized body of international law, and stated meetings of an international conference in which the civilized nations may meet and compare their opinions, their interests, their prejudices, and even their misunderstandings, would constitute an International Get Together Club, the influence of which it is not easy to estimate.

I believe that this international public opinion is already sufficiently strong to insure the acceptance by all civilized nations of international law as it is and will be interpreted by the International Court. All that is necessary is to protect peaceable and law-abiding nations against outlaw nations.

How this can best be done I am not prepared to say; but I am sure that any agreement to establish justice and peace among the nations must be founded on the intelligent good will of the people themselves; that therefore it cannot be fashioned for them by a score of diplo mats meeting in secret conclave, but must be adopted by them upon the recommendation of their officially authorized representatives, and after a full, free, and public discussion in which all the people have an opportunity to take part through the press and public gatherings.

I shall vote for Mr. Harding because I believe that his election will save both America and Europe from the peril involved in a world military alliance, and will insure a judicial League