CATT, Carrie Chapman SPEECH, ARTICLE, BOOK FILE Articles for The Woman's Journal Peace b Pledge (Continued from page 26) Kellogg has rescued France by agreeing to M. Briand's reservation that the previous obligations of France shall be respected. Despite M. Lauzanne's tart criticisms and that of some others, the French national elections have taken place and M. Briand's party has been retained in power. The German Government has wholeheartedly accepted the principle of these proposals. The British Government is apparently favorable. Sir Austen Chamberlain, in a speech before the House of Commons, has endorsed it. Lord Gray, Secretary of Foreign Affairs at the outbreak of the war, has urged the conclusion of the treaties. Early in May the British Government proposed a conference of jurists to consider terms of the treaty. Japan quickly supported this suggestion, and cautiously expresses sympathy with the whole proposal. Italy is cordial but evasive as to the fundamental suggestions. So the six Great Powers view the treaty situation at a moment which is fraught with marvelous possibilities of peace and good will for all the world but without guarantee of immediate conclusion. If those who formulate the treaty shape it to cooperate with the League of Nations and in no respect introduce a single question of conflict, a cause will have been found worthy of our united sacrifice and devotion. [??iting to the above advertisers, please mention the Woman??] [*Noted June 28*] The Woman's Journal 26 The Woman's Journal PEACE by PLEDGE by Carrie Chapman Catt "Build Friendships, Not Warships, for National Defense" Is the Slogan of the National Committee on the Cause and Cure of War in Its Campaign for a Multilateral Treaty to Outlaw War. The Chairman of the Committee Here Reports "Where We Stand" in Regard to the Proposal. She Volunteers to Answer, Either by Letter or in the Magazine, Any Questions Sent to Her. The world-around situation created by the treaty proposal of M. Briand, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, a year ago, has changed from week to week, now threatening to drift upon the reefs of final disaster, now promising hitherto undreamed of triumphs of peace. There can be no question but that the controversy has been centralized, objections reduced in number, and tolerance developed, while public and political opinion have steadily moved forward in the direction of support of the proposal. Meanwhile, the proposal itself has not remained stationary, but has expanded tremendously until it practically suggests treaties renouncing war among all the nations, and public opinion appears to have grown more widespread and enthusiastic with each new expansion. We are continually asked whether there is not a clash between the proposed multilateral treaty renouncing war and the League of Nations. Apparently this idea is current in the press and consequently is repeated among the people. La Nation Belge, as reported in our papers, asks editorially, "What good are new treaties if the League Covenant guarantees peace? And if peace is not guaranteed either by the Covenant or by the Locarno compacts, why would any new treaty guarantee any better?" This comment is a fair example of the attitude of the doubter. The answer to the first question is that the League of Nations makes no pretense to guarantee peace. It sets up a covenant "in order to achieve peace." The answer to the second question is that no treaty yet signed or proposed can be regarded as a guarantee of peace. The more pledges a nation makes, the stiffer the pledge, the freer from reservations, the bolder the terms, the more certainly does the treaty approach a guarantee. The present proposal is a bolder, franker, clearer agreement than any that have preceded it. Stephen Lauzanne, the famous French correspondent and editor, leads the French view in opposition. Says he, May 9, as reported in the press: "What have we seen in the past ten years except two peace systems different entirely and constantly clashing--here the logical system, which is Franco-Slav, and there the idealist system, which is of Anglo-Saxon fabrication? "The French system is based on the experience we have had of human nature. Men have disputed since humanity existed. It is better to set up a system of security for protection against fools and robbers. "The Anglo-Saxon system takes no account of experiences of the past and supposes that humanity can be suddenly transformed by a sort of religious fervor and transported into an ideal region where goodness and justice reign supreme. "Each one pledges peace, and the pledged word shall be the supreme law. To violate peace would be so terrible that we must not even think about it. We will always love one another because we promised to. "It is a system tied to the clouds, where nothing is specified and everything is left to the chance that every one will be of good faith." In this somewhat bitter though brilliant comment the fact may be detected that the alleged clash is not between the new proposal and the League of Nations but exists rather between two systems within the League itself, two systems that clash in every nation and in every discussion. The first system is based upon the theory that peace must be "enforced." An international army and navy must be ready to put down the violator of any anti-war treaty who breaks the peace. This view has been most strongly advocated by France and her particular allies. Indeed at the Versailles Conference, where the Covenant was written, France contended stoutly for an international army to enforce peace and thus give security. A compromise was made and in Article XI it is provided that "Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the members of the League or not, is a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations." In other words, the League Covenant prefers not to outline in advance the method it will use when and if an unknown bridge appears in its path, but will decide how to get over it when it occurs. Thus far, all difficulties have been satisfactorily settled through "moral suasion" by the League, and no occasion has shown need for an international army. The Anglo-Saxons, having been leaders in the development of democratic ideals and the force of public opinion, have opposed the international army idea and have contended that compacts must be respected between nations, that the pledged word must be honorably kept and that the force of moral influence must be applied to any recalcitrant nation before armed force is used. These are the two systems of theory; each has its supporters, and through these differing viewpoints men and women look upon the Briand-Kellogg proposal and draw their respective conclusions. Meanwhile, the Kellogg proposals, if carried out, will bring the United States up to the standards of the League and go somewhat beyond them. The French Cabinet has accepted M. Briand's proposals. M. Briand made certain reservations, chiefly that "the treaty shall not bar wars of legitimate defence" and that "the treaty shall not invalidate existing agreements"--meaning possible obligations through the League of Nations to enforce peace against a violator of League treaties. On April 28 Secretary Kellogg, in a speech, accepted these reservations. Raymond L. Buell in the Foreign Policy Association's Bulletin, explains the predicament France might otherwise have found herself in, as follows: "Suppose that State Y, which is at the same time a signatory of the anti-war treaty and a member of the League, attacks State X, which belongs to the League but which is not a party to the anti-war treaty. As far as the anti-war treaty is concerned, State Y is free to attack State X. But as a member of the League it has violated its obligations, and France as a League member is obliged to apply sanctions. Yet under the anti-war treaty, France is prevented from attacking State Y!" From this possible conflict Secretary (Continued of page 36) June, 1928 25 Taking Part in Government Interesting highlights in the speech of Miss Belle Sherwin, President of the National League of Women Voters, given at the League Convention in April. IT is fitting in this anniversary year of 1928, in Chicago where the League was founded on the eve of the Presidential campaign of 1920, to consider taking part in government as an end rather than a means, what it definitely requires of us, of citizens generally, of women today. I would not even hint that the educational experiment of the League is complete. Far from it. The technique of all adult education is only beginning to take shape. Even in our limited field, it is difficult to keep pace with the possibilities open to us--witness discussion groups and the radio. . . . Nor do I wish to imply impatience because the suffrage of women has not produced more immediate and striking results, seen either in numbers of votes cast or in a marked change in political habit. We in the League believe that change in both instances is practicable, but that it should come slowly, durably, through systematic and continuous effort in the gradual course of political development. Women can now point with pride to the increase in legislation for the protection of children and the establishment of their own legal status. I do not think this Presidential campaign year finds women surprisingly or disturbingly lacking in meeting political obligations. I do think it does put and should put conspicuously to the test the work of the League intended to help women meet those obligations--but it is not a final test. . . . It is difficult to agree with any party in all respects, but it is apparent that parties help to organize the political action of the people, so that it becomes definite in some respects. . . . The original interest in government, the ties of political association, loyalty to the government as the source of public well-being, all need to be very strong indeed in order to enable one to drive through a maze of personal problems, to reach some conclusions as guides to conduct. I believe that honest and patient thinking leads to an agreement with Mr. Elihu Root--that "the American who feels the responsibility of citizenship can do his duty better by entering the organization of one of the political parties. . . . The better educated, the more intelligent and active the citizen is, the greater reason is there to seek the increase of effectiveness which comes from association, combination, and organization." Staying outside a party organization because there are abuses in parties, or conflicts of loyalties, may mean keeping oneself unspotted from the world, but it is not the counsel of courage. Staying outside because one can get nowhere inside seems to me the counsel of impatience. I should like to think with Mr. Root that "there is never a time when a man of character and ability entering into the active work of a party cannot gain the influence and power to which ability entitles him, or cannot contribute materially to a change of control--provided he is willing to take the pains and give the time and effort necessary. . . . Of course, a new recruit cannot do it." It is time now to see more women of education , intelligence, ability, and character attempting to prove that. And the new recruit must begin by taking part in each process of party activity open to her in caucus or precinct. I wish to repeat that the League of Women Voters by no means prevents the activity of women in the parties, though that is sometimes said to be the case. On the contrary, the League urges today, as it began to do in 1920, that its members seek action through the political parties of their choice. And that urgent counsel does not contradict the conviction that a common meeting ground is needed by women, for the discussion --free from party bias or organization precedent--of "measures for which women see the need most clearly." In such a year as this the policy and counsel of the League may seem difficult to follow. Therefore I repeat what I have had occasion to say frequently this spring, that the extent to which officers who are publicly identified with the League should participate in partisan activities calls for careful consideration in each individual instance. As a general principle, the National Board advises "that League officers be as active in their respective political parties as it is possible to be without prejudicing or hampering their influence in the League. A League officer ought not to give the public any reasonable cause to doubt the unpartisan character of the League, composed of members of all parties." One must decide for oneself the vexed question of a conflict between loyalty to public interest and loyalty to party dicta. . . . Encouraging women to seek public office is an obligation today as it was not in 1920. We want more women in office, as we want more men, to give disinterested service. It is important now that some women should take part in government to the full extent of their capacity. As candidates they will undoubtedly interest voters; as elected officials, they will help give new values to votes. Because the League of Women Voters is at all times scrupulously careful to make its unpartisan position plain, it is often perplexing to know how to encourage women to seek office. But the nomination and endorsement of individual members of parties is not the only way to take. To study and to proclaim the opportunities for public service by women as office holders, to create understanding of women who seek and hold office, and when possible to set the fashion oneself may prove better ways. . . . . Citizens should be workmen in government--in one degree or another. Members of the League of Women Voters should become master workmen in political education--of which participation in government is a part and an end. The new secretary of the National League-- Mrs. Henry Steffens, Jr., of Detroit [This two-page insert is entirely under the control of the National League of Women Voters. The League is not responsible for anything else printed in the Woman's Journal and the Woman's Journal is not responsible for what is published by the League in its insert.] IF NOT PROHIBITION, WHAT? By CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT At the moment when the official legality of the Eighteenth Amendment was being announced, on the one hand, certain official heads of the organized and united distillers, brewers, consumers and supports of the liquor traffic announced, on the other, that violation would begin at once and continue with such unabated flagrancy and scandal that soon the public would rise in protest and demand the repeal of the law. It, therefore, happened that on the day following the establishment of the Amendment a fresh battle began with the same wets on one side, the same drys on the other, who had long been engaged in contest - the wets aiming at repeal, the drys at support of the Amendment. It is curious that this organized threat of insurrection has been so far forgotten and overlooked that throughout the past eleven years every successful violation of the Amendment has been charged to the frailties of the law rather than to the sharp practice of organized lawlessness. In truth, the new battle has been far easier for the wets and harder for the drys than the preceding one. An army of officers and workmen, now unemployed by the close of distilleries, breweries, and saloons, together with a considerable host of criminals, drunkards, prostitutes, drug addicts, and political henchmen, trained by the worst variety of the saloon, composed a ready force from which could be drawn any type of servitor required in the business of organized law nullification. The enforcement of the law did not lie with the drys, but with the Government. An immense staff of enforcing officers was necessary. These were often supplied by party patronage, and were frequently designed to violate rather than to uphold the law. Many men had little sympathy with the law itself, many were incompetent, others were Excerpts from the second article in a series printed in "The Woman's Journal" a monthly magazine published at 171 Madison Avenue, New York City - Every woman citizen should subscribe ($2.50 a year). weak and bribable, and others were in secret connivance with the law rebels. Thus, for eleven years, the United States has muddled along under prohibitions. To repeal the amendment now would be a cowardly and ignoble surrender to a minority who, at the beginning, announced their intention of compelling such an act. . . . . . No country is trusting itself to free and uncontrolled drink. Each is making some kind of effort by custom or law to restrict the manufacture and the use of alcoholic drink. . . . . . Dealing with liquor control began in this country as soon as the first white man stepped on American soil . . . . Were there an enterprising searcher for facts to tell us how many liquor laws have been passed in colonies, states and nations, since that first one, it would greatly add to our useful knowledge. Glancing over the long record I should say the number would be over a thousand. Certainly new laws were passed and old laws rescinded in most years. "IF NOT PROHIBITION, WHAT?" Most political parties dodge that question and most candidates for Congress evade it. Yet I want to say with all the force I can muster that it is the only question outstanding in the situation at this moment and that to avoid it is a cowardice unworthy of a self-respecting country. A practical, logical people will insist upon that question being completely answered before the Eighteenth Amendment is dropped out of the Constitution. Every conceivable law and regulation have already been tried in this or other countries and all have been pronounced failures by a large number of citizens of each country. Why should this country discard a law deliberately violated and persistently belittled in order to pick up another law in another country no better respected or enforced than is our prohibition? Why not give our own law one honest chance of enforcement and trial? Miss Tarbell would like to return to local option. Local option never has been a peaceful, satisfactory condition. That, like every other liquor law, has been under continual change. After a generation of experiment a country may have become reconciled to local prohibition. It must be remembered that there is not and never has been any form of liquor regulation satisfactory to drinking people and perhaps there never will be. HIGH LICENSE . . . . . In 1918 high license was at its most glorious peak. A high-power competition in selling was in fullest swing which planted new saloons in every available spot. Respectable saloons there were, but there were more with their back rooms, upper rooms and cellar rooms. Here addicts, prostitutes, gamblers, and the lowest type of politician joined in a common headquarters, and the wicked shamelessness of these lower types was the real cause of the last bound taken by the nation into constitutional prohibition. . . . . . The Amendment can be repealed by the same process that established it. It is a long and tortuous process, yet it can be accomplished; a temporary measure could be substituted while the change was in operation and somehow, somewhere, a new experiment could be devised. But why experiment? Why not stick fast to the Eighteenth Amendment until it is proved or disproved, or get a substitute with all the pieces fitted together and quit this ridiculous side-stepping? Is there a substitute? Certainly no authority with the right to speak has yet proposed one, but an interesting prospect has arisen. Dwight W. Morrow, candidate for Senator from New Jersey, has an idea. . . . . He would repeal the Eighteenth Amendment, then introduce another amendment "which will restore to the states the power to determine their policy toward the liquor traffic and vest in the Federal Government power to give all possible protection and assistance to those states that desire complete prohibition against invasion from the states that do not." . . . . . Mr. Morrow, in rather an indeterminable way, would go backward, but his plan will please few wets and few drys. When he is appointed political leader of letting out one constitutional amendment and letting in another, he will have more trouble than he has yet met. It is difficult to imagine a distiller or brewer making sufficient additional profit in such a scheme to attract him, or any dry finding helpfulness in a prohibition state with bootleggers, spies, and smugglers sitting in a row all the way around on the frontier. If the United States cannot enforce a Federal prohibition amendment now, how can it be expected to protect scattered prohibition states with liquor bases plentifully disposed? What will it do when fleets of airplanes carrying forbidden beverages fly over the frontiers and defy the nation? Why not clean up all the frontiers instead of a few? How queer are men! Many of us see advantages in prohibition that we like. We do not drink nor associate intimately with people who do. We do not serve liquor in our homes and we turn down our glasses on other tables. We are pleased to pass along the street where we see no saloons and smell no rancid liquor issuing from the swinging doors. There are no tippling men who enter our homes and we see no drunken men. We do not discuss prohibition nor the detestable character of the modern social class which finds in the violation of the law the chief charm of life. Whatever the law, we shall live in the same quiet, law-abiding, simple and civilized way. I, for one, shall stand by prohibition as long as it is there, and thousands and thousands of American men and women will so live to the end. WET PROPAGANDA . . . . . In the present situation, I am not disturbed by the irritation and uncertainty the wet propaganda is arousing. It seems in accord with all the history of liquor law-making - whatever is, is wrong. Nor do I find anything upsetting in the fact that some of foreign birth, with little or no education and no American training, may join the half criminal forces engaged in organized violation of the law. What shocks me is the American man or woman who defies a law honestly made in the regular way by a majority of fellow citizens. Drink and drunkenness were not respectable before the Eighteenth Amendment was put in the Constitution and no change of the law can make them so. The ladies joining the drinking forces and organized to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment can never make drink decent nor themselves a moral force. The trend of a thousand years is in the opposite direction and it will continue in that direction. I predict that the United States will stick to prohibition, but I do not say that it may not repeal the Eighteenth Amendment a few times as it passes along its ever-changing way. In the end it will return to the law which has called forth its hardest fight and aims at the highest decency. Copyright by the Woman's Citizen Corporation, printed by permission. This is one of a series of leaflets published by the WOMAN'S NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, 919 Metropolitan Building, Boston, Mass. Vol. XV, No. 7 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL July, 1930 Mrs. Park Carrie Chapman Catt IF NOT PROHIBITION, WHAT? The Second Article in a Series on Both Sides of the Most Controversial Question Before the American Public. Later Articles Will Argue for and Against Government Control By CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT AT the moment when the official legality of the Eighteenth Amendment was being announced, on the one hand, certain official heads of the organized and united distillers, brewers, consumers and supporters of the liquor traffic announced, on the other, that violation would begin at once and continue with such unabated flagrancy and scandal that soon the public would rise in protest and demand the repeal of the law. It, therefore, happened that on the day following the establishment of the Amendment a fresh battle began with the same wets on one side, the same drys on the other, who had long been engaged in contest--the wets aiming at repeal, the drys at support of the Amendment. It is curious that this organized threat of insurrection has been so far forgotten and overlooked that throughout the past eleven years every successful violation of the Amendment has been charged to the frailties of the law rather than to the sharp practice of organized lawlessness. In truth, the new battle has been far easier for the wets and harder for the drys than the preceding one. An army of officers and workmen, now unemployed by the close of distilleries, breweries, and saloon, together with a considerable host of criminals, drunkards, prostitutes, drug addicts, and political henchmen, trained by the worst variety of the saloon, composed a ready force from which could be drawn any type of servitor required in the business of organized law nullification. 5 6 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL The enforcement of the law did not lie with the drys, but with the Government. An immense staff of enforcing officers was necessary. These were often supplied by party patronage, and were frequently designed to violate rather than to uphold the law. Many men had little sympathy with the law itself, many were incompetent, others were weak and bribable, and others were in secret connivance with the law rebels. Thus, for eleven years, the United States has muddled along under prohibition. To repeal the amendment now would be a cowardly and ignoble surrender to a minority who, at the beginning, announced their intention of compelling such an act. Facing the Issue OTHER facts have also been overlooked. In the times of primitive men the discovery of fermented beverage filled a man with hilarious joy and led to the increased manufacture and use of drink. A tribe was never so happy as when it was drunk. After some millions of years there were groups or nations who experienced a faint dawn of intelligence and observed that drunkenness brought crime, murder, war, and other catastrophes, and they made a feeble effort to restrain drink. At this moment, all so-called civilized peoples are in this stage. No country is trusting itself to free and uncontrolled drink. Each is making some kind of effort by custom or law to restrict the manufacture and the use of alcoholic drink. Prohibition did not originate in this Voluntary abstinence. This quaint picture illustrates "Happiness and Thrift under the Pledge" country. Marco Polo recorded one Chinese state which had a law much like the Eighteenth Amendment, but no one knows if this was the earliest example, or how long it lasted. The law longest in operation and most successful appears to be the total abstinence custom of the largest group of Asiatic Mohammedans. All the world around, laws and customs are now in existence, each aiming to restrain drunkenness. No two laws are alike and no law is well enforced or popular. No law which limits drink is liked by those who enjoy unlimited drink. Each law is praised by its friends and condemned by its foes. There is one common attitude of a portion of the citizens of every country toward its liquor law, and that is an earnest desire to get rid of it. Dealing with liquor control began in this country as soon as the first white man stepped on American soil. As the journeys by sail boats were long, the passengers had religious services and prayer meetings twice every day, and I suspect many plans were made before Plymouth Rock was sighted. Early Soul Cleanings THE first attempt was to clean up the habits of the church itself. Reformers began with the ministers. I've heard my grandfather say that when he was a boy there were only three uses for money among the common people, and one was for purchasing whisky which was passed to the minister when he called. The Quakers began zealously by forbidding the passing around of drink at a funeral more than once. These agitations and general soul cleanings eventually led to the making of laws, the first appearing in 1642, punishing drunkenness by a fine of one hundred pounds of tobacco. The law was violated n a troublesome way, the drinkers making comfortable speakeasies in haystacks with bootleggers in the distance. This happened in Maryland, which has been uneasy in its mind on the drink question ever since. Were there an enterprising searacher for facts to tell us how many liquor laws have been passed in colonies, states and nation, since the first one, it would greatly add to our useful knowledge. Glancing over the long record I should say the number would be over a thousand. Certainly new laws were passed and old laws rescinded in most years. The general agitation began to shape An old print entitled "Victims of the Bottle," made about the time that the general agitation in the United States against liquor began to shape itself into prohibition legislation July, 1930 7 itself into the form of prohibition legislation about 1840 and became a definite trend in 1852 with the establishment of the first "Maine law." The changeability of the American mind on this question might be illustrated by the history of many states. One will do. Rhode Island, now a vigorous leader in the movement to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment and one of the two states that did not ratify that Amendment, is an excellent example. A Long Story IN 1647 the Colony prohibited drunkenness and also the sale of liquor to Indians. It was somewhat discouraged with the difficulties of enforcement. In 1851 a Democratic Legislature established a prohibition law. In 1853 the State Court pronounced the law unconstitutional. In 1855 a new prohibition law was passed by the Legislature. In 1863 a Republican Legislature repealed the law. In 1874 the Legislature prohibited the sale of intoxicating beverages and passed a constabulary act for its enforcement. In 1875 the prohibitory law and the constabulary were repealed. In 1886 the Legislature voted to submit a state prohibition amendment to a popular vote (men only) and by a three-fifths majority it was carried. In 889 the amendment was rescinded at the polls. A high license was adopted, that plan then sweeping the country. Thus Rhode Island passed from law to law through 242 years, rarely remaining under any law long enough to give it a fair test. Now "Little Rhody" wants to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment. At no time has she done other than signally fail in her early determination to restrain drunkenness. She offers no hint as to what experiment she will try next. Like her neighbors, she merely changes her mind or flounders about like the proverbial "chicken with its head cut off." Like Miss Tarbell, whose article under this same title appeared in the June issue, most people find the present situation a predicament and "see no straight way out of it." She hesitates to meet the question, "If not prohibition, what?" Most political parties dodge that question and most candidates for Congress evade it. Yet I want to say with all the force I can muster that Underwood & Underwood A picture of something the Eighteenth Amendment has made a thing of the past--the child with the beer pail at the side door of a saloon. it is the only question outstanding in the situation at this moment and that to avoid it is a cowardice unworthy of a self-respecting country. A practical, Here they come! The beginning of the Hillsboro Crusade of 1873, a dramatic movement against the saloon and its evils. logical people will insist upon that question being completely answered before the Eighteenth Amendment is dropped out of the Constitution. Every conceivable law and regulation have already been tried in this or other countries and all have been pronounced failures by a large number of citizens of each country. Why should this country discard a law deliberately violated and persistently belittled in order to pick up another law in another country no better respected or enforced than is our prohibition? Why not give our own law one honest change of enforcement and trial? Miss Tarbell would like to return to local option. Local option never has been a peaceful, satisfactory condition. That, like every other liquor law, has been under continual change. After a generation of experiment a country may have become reconciled to local prohibition. It must be remembered that there is not and never has been any form of liquor regulation satisfactory to drinking people and perhaps there never will be. High License MISS TARBELL would also like to return to 1918 when she thinks all was peaceful. Perhaps one of the great difficulties people now have of adjusting themselves to the present situation is that so many of them did not notice previous conditions as they passed through them. In 1918 high license was at its most glorious peak. A high-power competition in selling was in fullest swing which planted new saloons in every available spot. Respectable saloons there were, but there were more with back rooms, upper rooms and cellar rooms. Here addicts, prostitutes, gamblers, and the lowest type of politician joined in a common headquarters, and the wicked shamelessness of these lower types was the real cause of the last bound taken by the nation into constitutional prohibition. The commonsense procedure is to find the substitute, adopt it, slip the substitute into the vacancy and then repeal the Amendment. This would save some nerve racks and worries to the millions of Americans who tremble now at the uncertainty before them. (Continued on page 30) 8 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL Courtesy of the American Museum of History Dr. Mead and her husband lived in this watery village while she studied the child life and he studied the religion of the Manu people. Their sojourn there was also their honeymoon. "Going Native" for Science Dr. Margaret Mead, Ethnologist, Tells How She Lived in a Grass Hut in the Admiralty Islands and Became a Princess in Samoa to Study the Life of Her Primitive Neighbors By FRANCES DREWRY McMULLEN DR. MARGARET MEAD: a title as assistant curator of ethnology of the vast American Museum of Natural History ; a reputation as a painstaking research worker ; a steady, businesslike voice over the telephone ; and, finally, a name sonorously rolled beneath the tongue of a uniformed announcer. Would you be prepared for a small, boyishly built young person of twenty-seven years, with short hair about her ears, a wide candid smile beneath tortoise-rimmed spectacles and a hospitably outstretched hand ? Neither was I. I barely missed inquiring as she came to greet me, "Dr. Mead's secretary?" Yet in retrospect it seems very logical that this appointment, for all the imposing preconceptions I had formed, should turn out an ordinary human contact, informal and friendly. At the same time those imposing preconceptions were in order, with foundations in fact. The aspect of Dr. Mead as a scientist of insight and wisdom and that of her as a genial Benmosche Studio Dr. Margaret Mead young person are equally essential to the true picture of herself, and to the adequate understanding of what she has done. In the half decade Dr. Mead has been out of college, she has made a name for her travels, not over the comfortable, well-trodden paths travelers usually pursue, but to remote spots of the world seldom visited by foreigners except when business takes them there-- and for a particularly intrepid spirit. The flavor of her spirit is indicated by the nonchalance with which she laughed off the suggestion that courage was needed for launching out on one's own into the life of isolated and outlandish villages. The nature of her business is the way of living and thinking of primitive folk. She travels not to see sights and observe peoples casually, but to become part and parcel, for a while, of a certain slice of culture and to analyze and evaluate those who make it up. The attitude presupposes equipment and point of view that are highly scientific, but not strictly so ; for the per- 30 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL why multiply the delights in store for the thin! They rarely appreciate them. Only the overweights have appreciated them, too well. And, if a beautiful figure is a strong drawing card, the overweights should eschew their luscious flesh pots and comfort themselves with the proverbial fare of poets, honey dew : fruits, vegetables, the minimum two glasses of milk, and hikes and swims twice as long as are enough for the thin. For the creation of a lovely figure, what the reducing woman eats is more important than what she does not eat, for a body that has been reduced without sufficient vitamins, minerals and roughage will be stringy and flabby, too easily tired to be subjected to the shaping by exercise. At the end of your vacation get out your tape measure once more and take again the same two measurements you took at the beginning of your vacation. If the ratio between the two measurements represents a gain for the chest of one or two inches and a loss for the abdomen of two or four inches, you may rest well content that your figure is being built along the proportion of beauty. America's Most Popular Writer KATHLEEN NORRIS is not Afraid to be Unpopular for Peace "Worn Out War Talk" by KATHLEEN NORRIS Coming Are You Planning to Travel? Won't you tell us what your plans are? We can get you helpful information about almost any trip you may wish to take. Please fill out the blank below, and mail to: THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL, 171 Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y. I am interested in a trip, and would be glad of helpful information. Where to Special information wanted Name Address Why Not Prohibition? (Continued from page 7) The Amendment can be repealed by the same process that established it. It is a long and tortuous process, yet it can be accomplished ; a temporary measure could be substituted while the change was in operation and somehow, somewhere, a new experiment could be devised. By why experiment? Why not stick fast to the Eighteenth Amendment until it is proved or disproved, or get a substitute with all the pieces fitted together and quit this ridiculous side-stepping? Is there a substitute? Certainly no authority with the right to speak has yet proposed one, but an interesting prospect has arisen. Dwight W. Morrow, candidate for Senator from New Jersey, recent Ambassador to Mexico and Commissioner to London, has an idea. All over the country he is pronounced by some a hero ; by others a party splitter. He would repeal the Eighteenth Amendment, then introduce another amendment "which will restore to the states the power to determine their policy toward the liquor traffic and vest in the Federal Government power to give all possible protection and assistance to those states that desire complete prohibition against invasion from the states that do not." Like Miss Tarbell, Mr. Morrow, in rather an indeterminable way, would go backward, but his plan will please few wets and few drys. When he is appointed political leader of letting out one constitutional amendment and letting in another, he will have more trouble than he has yet met. It is difficult to imagine a distiller or brewer making sufficient additional profit in such a scheme to attract him, or any dry finding helpfulness in a prohibition state with bootleggers, spies, and smugglers sitting in a row all the way around on the frontier. If the United States cannot enforce a Federal prohibition amendment now, how can it be expected to protect scattered prohibition states with liquor bases plentifully disposed? What will it do when fleets of airplanes carrying forbidden beverages fly over the frontiers and defy the nation? Why not clean up all the frontiers instead of a few? How queer are men! Many of us see advantages in prohibition that we like. We do not drink nor associate intimately with people who do. We do not serve liquor in our homes and we turn down our glasses on other tables. We are pleased to pass along the street where we see no saloons and smell no rancid liquor issuing from the swinging doors. There are no tippling men who enter our homes and we see no drunken men. We do not discuss prohibition nor the detestable character of the modern social class which finds in the violation of the law the chief charm of life. Whatever the law, we shall live in the same quiet law-abiding, simple and civilized way. I, for one, shall stand by prohibition as long as it is there, and thousands and thousands of American men and women will so live to the end. There are other things about prohibition I do not like. It seems out of place to regulate drink in the Constitution and I do not like laws in the form of "Thou shalt not." Yet, after all, the Commandments and most laws are drafted in this form, and so I reconcile myself to these facts even though I do not like them. Wet Propaganda In the present situation, I, for one, am not disturbed by the irritation and uncertainty the wet propaganda is arousing. It seems in accord with all the history of liquor law-making-- whatever is, is wrong. Nor do I find anything upsetting in the fact that some of foreign birth, with little or no education and no American training, may join the half criminal forces engaged in organized violation of the law. What shocks me is the American man or woman who defies a law honestly made in the regular way by a majority of fellow citizens. Drink and drunkenness were not respectable before the Eighteenth Amendment was put in the Constitution and no change of the law can make them so. The ladies joining the drinking forces and organized to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment can never make drink decent nor themselves a moral force. The trend of a thousand years is in the opposite direction and it will continue in that direction. I predict that the United States will stick to prohibition, but I do not say that it may not repeal the Eighteenth Amendment a few times as it passes along its ever-changing way. In the end it will return to the law which has called forth its hardest fight and aims at the highest decency. July, 1930 29 be purchase which permit the use of any make of liquid soap--often at a lower price. Since nickel, even on the best brass base, is apt to turn green, chromium plated fixtures are more satisfactory. Toilet sets and individual pieces of glass and china in all colors of the rainbow, as well as less breakable ones of composition materials, are another easy way of introducing color and personality into a bathroom. It is merely a matter of choice, and one may "go modern" at small expense. All of these gay, yet useful, toilet accessories help to make the bathroom a place where one may truly "bathe in beauty." The Perfect Figure (Continued from page 23) and fatigue A nice hike should take at least two hours and preferably four, and its route should include a hill to climb up and down. Rowing is another form of symmetrical exercise that broadens the shoulders, narrows the back, and takes the fat off the abdomen. Other kinds of exercise, as tennis, while splendid for the organs and muscles of the body, being lopsided in effort, are not so directly creative of a beautiful figure. Also, on our vacations, when our minds are not cluttered with a mass of details about housekeeping and jobs, we can very deliberately turn our attention to the obtaining of a correct weight. A correct weight is an essential to a beautiful figure for it helps to assure the correct proportion upon which beauty rests. The too thin must rest more and avoid all fatigue, both daily and cumulative. Their swims and hikes must be much shorter in duration and distance than the activities of the overweight. Underweights should sleep ten hours a night and nap or rest or swing in a hammock from two to four in the afternoon, until the weight begins to creep upward on the scales. Both gainers and reducers should weigh about twice a week. A daily variation of about three pounds represents the body's normal twenty-four-hour fluctuation ; so not until the gain or loss is permanently more than three pounds can it be considered as muscular tissue added or subtracted from the body. Thin people should most scrupulously rest before and after their meals, never beginning their exercise until a peaceful half hour has been allowed the digestive apparatus. Thin people must realize that, in order to gain, they must eat daily a little more than they use up daily. They must stretch their stomachs. Underweights can have strawberries with whipped cream, hot toast with creamy sweet butter spread on in thick slices as if it were cheese, hot waffles with bee honey or maple tree maple syrup. But Costumes from Kaskel & Kaskel Dunlap You will find lasting protection in the new fitted, softer Kotex Kotex deodorizes; Kotex is softer, more absorbent, and thus adds both daintiness and comfort to sanitary protection. YOU want a feeling of security and safety in sanitary protection. But you want even more than that, and Kotex gives you more. First of all, it deodorizes, keeps you dainty, fresh, immaculate at times when that is doubly important. It is fashioned to fit securely. Under the closest fitting gown it is inconspicuous -- a fact that smart women are quick to appreciate. Lasting softness Kotex stays soft, stays comfortable, after hours of wear. It is made of a most unusual substance, known as Cellucotton (not cotton) absorbent wadding. This is the very same absorbent used by 85% of our great hospitals today. It is not cotton, but a cellulose substance which, for sanitary purposed, performs the same function as the softest cotton--with five times the absorbency. When you think it over, the fact that great hospitals use Kotex is your most important assurance that it is best for personal use. Hospitals--with their high medical standards -- are careful to use only the best, the most comfort-giving, the most hygienic protection for patients. And don't forget that Kotex is disposable. That alone has changed the hygienic habits of women all over the world. Once you try it, you, too, will change to this newer, smarter sanitary method. Kotex Company, Chicago, Ill. IN HOSPITALS 1 85% of our leading hospitals use the very same absorbent of which Kotex is made. 2 Kotex is soft . . . not a deceptive softness that soon packs into chafing hardness. But a delicate, fleecy softness that lasts for hours. 3 Safe, secure . . . keeps your mind at ease. 4 Deodorizes . . . safely, thoroughly, by a special process. 5 Disposable, instantly, completely. Regular Kotex--45c for 12 Kotex Super-Size--65c for 12 Also regular size singly in vending cabinets through West Disinfecting Co. Ask to see the KOTEX BELT and KOTEX SANITARY APRON at any drug, dry goods or department store. K O T E X The New Sanitary Pad which deodorizes When writing to the Kotex Company, please mention the Woman's Journal December, 1929 Courtesy of Harper & Bros. A cartoon of 1870, shortly after the first woman had been admitted to the bar Vol. XIV. No. 12 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL December, 1929 Courtesy of New York Public Library A view of the Common in Boston--about the year the Woman's Journal was started there Sixty Years of Stepping Forward By Carrie Chapman Catt WHEN Lucy Stone and her brave husband, Henry Blackwell, were making ready to issue the first copy of the Woman's Journal, just sixty years ago, they lived in a very different world from the one we know. Today the editor of the Journal pushes a button attached to her desk and in walks a spry young woman with a book and pencil to take stenographic notes of letters, messages, telegrams or editorials. Rows of clicking typewriters, in response to quick and skilled fingers, are transferring such notes into neat letters or manuscripts. The switchboard girl telephones the telegrams to the telegraph office and off they go in less time than it takes to tell the story. Should a dark day obscure the daylight in this intensely active office, a mere touch of a fingertip flashes on an electric light. When the busy bees desert the Journal hive at five o'clock, the tired editor may linger a bit longer and in the comforting silence she may joke with herself as she chuckles dingbats into a dictaphone ready for the operator in the morning. One imagine Lucy Stone and Henry Blackwell writing the wrappers with their own hands for the favored recipients of the Woman's Journal Number 1, January, 1870, and certainly neither foresaw that subscribers would one day get their magazine set up by linotypes, addressed and wrapped by machinery. All these miracles of this machine age were unknown and undreamt of then. In that year of 1870 the first working model of the typewriter was quietly being put together. In 1876, at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, the telephone was exhibited and people privileged to use one ejaculated, "Why, I can hear through it!" "Very interesting," said the multitude, "but of what use can it be?" The same people watched the writing on the first typewriter and made the same comment on its impracticability. Mark Twain saw its possible convenience to an author and was the first distinguished purchaser. It was some time before stenography was combined with typewriting, but when it was, no typewriterless and telephoneless business house could compete with one that was equipped with "modern improvements." Mr. Edison brought out his incandescent lamp in 1879, and candles, kerosene and even gas beat a quick retreat before its superior qualifications. Meanwhile the Journal was encouraging every step forward for women, spreading the news of all injustices and discriminations. A sketchy picture of the times, so far as women were concerned, may be drawn from legislative and other activities of that date. In 1869 Wyoming and Minnesota gave women the power to make a will and to control their property and wages, Illinois gave women the control 7 8 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL Pictorial News Co. Proud marchers in an early woman suffrage parade as their way down Fifth Avenue, New York of their wages, the District of Columbia gave women the control of their property and wages, women were admitted to Michigan University at Ann Arbor, and Wyoming granted full suffrage to women. Like a Morning Star FOR many a year this Western Territory, the only suffrage state in the world, like a lone morning star, shed its glow upon a stubborn and prejudiced human race. In 1879 South Carolina gave control of property and the power to make a will, Tennessee gave the right to make a will, Iowa gave control of wages to married women, Utah granted full suffrage to women (Congress took away the privilege in 1883 and it was not restored until 1896, at the admission of Utah to statehood) . In 1872, while Cornell University was admitting women, California, Montana and Utah were granting control of property to women, while Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were conceding in gingerly fashion the control of wages, and North Carolina was granting the right to make a will, the spotlight fell upon a figure, noble and austere, Susan B. Anthony, who was tried, pronounced guilty and fined for voting under the fourteenth amendment to the national Constitution by way of test. She refused to pay the fine, which was never collected, nor was she imprisoned for her defiance or the decision of the court. What the world said about it, pro and con, would fill a book. Here stood our country when the Journal made its entry into the woman movement. It told the news and there was much to tell. Every issue sent some woman after her sunbonnet and a spirited call upon her neighbor. From 1870 to 1880 speakers were not only telling about the property laws and the vote, but they emphasized the right of women to enter the professions, for just then the woman movement had centered around that point. The first woman doctor was Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, graduated in 1848 in Geneva, New York. The women at her boarding house refused to speak to her during her three years of study and on the streets drew aside their skirts if they chanced to meet her, lest they become contaminated by contact. In 1850 Antoinette Brown was graduated in theology at Oberlin, the first woman in the world to receive that privilege. In 1869 Mrs. Belle Mansfield was admitted to the bar in Iowa, the first woman lawyer in modern times. The number of women who had followed these pioneers were few and they were having a hard time. The greatest demand was for women doctors, but men doctors not infrequently organized boycotts against them. The popular view was that the proper place for all women was in the kitchen and the nursery. From 1880 to 1890 the forces turned to a new battleground, and that was the contention that women might vote at least in school elections. The movement spread from state to state, winning here and losing there, but, in the main, making steady gains. Ten states gave school suffrage during those ten years. Washington gave full suffrage, which was taken away by the Supreme Court. Full suffrage was granted by the legislature of Dakota (before division into North and South Dakota) , but it was vetoed by the Governor. In 1890 the greatest victory yet achieved was the admission of Wyoming to statehood with equal suffrage in its constitution. It had originally been granted by precisely the same authority that was used in Utah, Washington and Dakota. In those territories it was lost through politics. From 1890 to 1900 a small step forward was taken by the entire feminine battlefront. Having largely been granted school suffrage, they proposed women members for school boards. "Ridiculous, incredible, disgusting," shouted the opposition. "On with the battle," answered the suffragists. The Journal stood fast, telling the news, inspiring the faithful, stirring up new campaigns. Armies of Women Workers MEANWHILE, the unexpected was happening. Stenography, typewriting, telephoning telegraphy, all called for women--armies of them. The first makers of the typrewriter contend that the typewriter was the real emancipator of women. I can recall the time when, in many cities and towns, no women or girls went to work in business sections and any woman who chanced to appear was stared at with more or less insolence. When in 1840, (Continued on page 35) December, 1929 35 Stepping Forward (Continued from page 8) Harriet Martineau visited this country, she found seven occupations open to women ; now only about thirty occupations are not open to women. Now, subways, elevated trains and surface street cars discharge hundreds of thousands of girls and women into the business world. No business could proceed without women's help today. The women workers in offices and women workers in factories and miscellaneous industries brought new illustrations for old arguments and all suffragists knew that the bonds of ancient traditions could not much longer resist the pressure of this wholly new factor in the world's experience. The feminine army moved its battlefront forward and its appeals were broader and stronger. From 1869 every Congress in Washington had listened to the pleas of women for Federal action, and most state legislatures had heard the plea for some form of state suffrage. By 1900 a limited suffrage had been gained in twenty-five states and full suffrage in four. From 1900 to 1910 there was a great earnestness in building up the forces, preparatory to the final struggle. Prejudice yielded slowly. One chairman of the Senatorial Suffrage Committee said after a hearing during this period : "There isn't a man in Christendom that can answer the argument of those women, but I'd rather see my wife dead in her coffin than going to vote." A very great many men were feeling much the same way. A grand push forward had to come next to destroy that feeling, and it came. The organization grew larger and larger. All along the line women made themselves as free as possible in order to give themselves without pay or reward ; and how they worked, early and late, from Maine to California ! The enemy doubled and trebled its forces, too. The rum ring, the railroad ring, the Manufacturers' Association, each with some financial interest to serve, flooded the ratification legislatures with lobbyists when the Federal Amendment went through, but the appointed time had come and 1920 saw the end of the suffrage struggle. The Woman's Journal all the way through was the organ, the patron, the guide, the staff, and the increasing faith upholder of the woman's cause. Nowhere in the records of history do I find so many and such mighty transformations as within the last sixty years. Nowhere do I find such fundamental changes in public opinion, customs, home and business life, and especially those that most intimately concern women. Looking backward, I see a long When writing process of women, the beginning lost in the obscurity of long ago, brave-souled women all marching onward. The numbers grow greater ; the faces more cheerful ; the mien confident as they approach the goal of a hundred years. How glorious the final victory ! The sun is setting upon sixty years of the Journal's life. Its bound volumes tell the story of six decades of the baffling, battling, losing, winning struggle of women to escape from outgrown repressions. Outlined against that setting sun stands woman, emancipated. To be sure there are a few odd jobs before the aim is quite accomplished, but she is now able to make her own way. The sun is rising upon another sixty years. Its record will tell what women have done with their newly acquired liberty. Woman as "Persons (Continued from page 11) out was found for the rich woman through the courts of equity, which invented devices by which the married woman might enjoy certain limited rights and the husband be placed under more general obligations. But to substitute for the older law relations adapted to modern ideas of family life, it has been necessary in each state to amend the law of the family at every point, and in addition legislation has been necessary in many states to ena women to enter the professions tha them. the earl enabling mino b GIFT BOOKS Smoky By WILL JAMES author of "Sand," etc. An animal story with an irresistible appeal. The latest addition to the famous series, "The Scribner $2.50 Illustrated Classics for Younger Readers," with new James color illustrations, it is more than ever the perfect gift book for younger readers. With full-page illustrations in color and black and white by the author. $2.50 American Folk and Fairy Tales Selected by RACHEL FIELD of amusing folk-tales, culled dian lore, colonial legends, and negro animal stories, are in utiful gift book, a refreshing n fairy and folk books. ut 50 illustrations (8 in color) ret Freeman. $3.00 from "Smoky" by Will James 36 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL rights, duties and responsibilities in relation to her children, while in the other twelve some recognition has been given to her claims. Six states give the right to establish separate domicile for certain purposes. Perhaps it is not necessary to give figures. The point is that the separate existence of the married woman is so widely recognized that it is perhaps more profitable to ask what remains to be done. Questions Still Unsettled Under the Cable Act of 1922, independent citizenship was established for married women and it may be said that the governing principle in the treatment of the married woman today is that of regarding her as an independent person of adult self-determining capacity. There are still unsettled questions in the inevitable conflict between the claims of the separate individuals in the family group and the common needs of the group, the problem of the reciprocal claims of husband and wife on the companionship of the other, on the income that is enjoyed, on what remains in property rights on the death of either. Such questions as statutory heirship, separate domicile, independent citizenship, the right to testify, the reciprocal duty of giving support, these questions occupy the jurists who are "restating the law" as well as the women who have still to secure legislative enactments in the various commonwealths. The wisest and most learned lawyers are saying to each other, in effect, "The women mean to secure the status of independent adult capacity, why not help them obtain it promptly, and remove that occasion for effort and discussion?" Yet strange and unendurable survivals of the older order still persist. The idea that woman is less than fully competent seems to justify protecting her against so-called birth control information which alone will enable her most competently to perform her primary marital duty ; the notion that she must still be treated as an adolescent shuts her out from obtaining and imparting the knowledge essential for the young who are facing the problems that surround the adolescent today. Of course, the law with reference to women, while it has always been inadequate, has also often been strangely inconsistent. Myra Bradwell could not be admitted to the bar in Illinois in 1869, but she could be incorporated as the Chicago Legal News, and obtain from the Secretary of State prompt information with reference to the enactment of laws and to judicial discussions. Not authorized to practice herself she could become, for those who practiced, the source of authentic and comprehensive information as to what the law was, and how it was being changed and what alterations were still called for. Today, women everywhere may practice law ; but in Illinois today a woman may not serve as a juror, while in Cook County a woman is judge of the largest juvenile court in the world. Under the free exercise of their intelligence, however, increasingly delicate public machinery is being developed to adjust the conflicting interests that remain, and to make possible for men and women and children relationships most promising in view of the complexity and confusion of modern social life. The Capper Resolution (Continued from page 17) treaty for the renunciation of war, it shall be unlawful, unless otherwise provided by act of Congress or by proclamation of the President, to export to such country, arms, munitions, implements of war, or other articles for use in war until the President shall by proclamation declare that such violation no longer continues. "It is declared to be the policy of the United States that the nationals of the United States should not be protected by their government in giving aid and comfort to a nation which has committed a breach of the said treaty." It was the will of our people, and the skillful diplomacy of Secretary Kellogg, which made the Pact a reality. The public sentiment of the world was behind the idea, but this country crystalized that sentiment into the terms of the Pact. From this country also should come the leadership in devising ways to express effectively the public opinion without which no pact or treaty or agreement can assure substantial world peace. This public opinion must find expression in acts of government. The act of government which I am proposing is the simplest form of practical application of the high principles of the Kellogg Pact. Adoption of this resolution would take the profit out of war for some munition factories and other businesses in this country. But I hold that making war less profitable is one of the steps toward world peace. We have traveled a long way from the time when an American Secretary of State was justified in saying that "we have no concern" in a war between European powers. The statement was true at that time but it is no longer true. We have arrived at the realization of the fact that the arbitrary act of a single government may menace Western civilization. Now we have joined in a solemn compact not to resort to war as an instrument of national policy, but in its stead to substitute the settlement of differences by arbitration, by conciliation, by conference. man's Journal July 1929 Editorial -Woman's Journal The World Court Again "THE Root Formula" is likely to become the chief topic of conversation and the favorite lead in speechmaking among peacemakers until the next Congress meets. What is it? Mr. Elihu Root was invited by the League of Nations to become a member of a committee of expert jurists appointed for the purpose of ascertaining whether the statutes of the Permanent Court of International Justice, after eight years of practical usage, could be improved by amendment. The invitation came at the very moment when Mr. Coolidge and Mr. Kellogg were baffled in their attempt to find a way to reopen the question of the entrance of the United States into the World Court. Mr. Root went to the Conference, held in Geneva in March, inspired by the private aspiration that he might be able to find a common plane of understanding among the nations, including our own, which would allow our membership in the Court. Mr. Kellogg paved the way for successful discussion by addressing a message to all member states of the Court, expressing the desire that an understanding might be reached whereby the United States could also become a member. Yet Mr. Root went with no authorization from the United States Government and this Government made no proposal ; but Mr. Root wrought out a Protocol known as the Root Formula, where in the member states, about forty in number, have accepted the five reservations of the United States Senate with such insignificant modifications that some will say the acceptance has been absolute. The Protocol must now be ratified by the nation members of the Court and by the United States. With us, this means that an endorsement by a two-thirds vote of the Senate must be secured. The entire account makes a longer story and will be told later. Those who have favored the World Court until now will enlist on its behalf again ; those who imagine that the Court forms a sinister subterranean passage for the United States into the League will speak as before. A buzzing campaign may result. CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT. Reprinted from the WOMAN'S JOURNAL, March, 1929. What Is the Monroe Doctrine? We Have Had the Monroe Doctrine for More Than a Century. We Know Its Effect, But Who Knows What It Is? This Article Explains Why an Understanding Is Necessary to the World's Peace Address By CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT Fourth Conference on Cause and Cure of War, Washington, D. C., January 1929 THE psychology produced in the Western Hemisphere by the Monroe Doctrine, as it is accepted, unquestionably stirs ill instead of good will. In a visit to Latin America I was astounded at the character and extent of the resentment expressed toward the Monroe Doctrine. Every boy in Latin America learns its meaning and significance in the schools, but certainly what is taught there is not what is taught our own boys. The boys on these two continents grow up and take their places in the administration of their respective governments and each comes to his duty with preconceived, fixed, but opposing ideas of the Monroe Doctrine, a condition calculated to create misunderstanding. The Monroe Doctrine is certainly a military threat, and the psychology of a threat is always to create enemies instead of friends, suspicion instead of trust. Curiously, the threat of the Doctrine was aimed at European nations and was pronounced in the interest and protection of Latin-American colonies. Yet Europe appears undisturbed by it now, while Latin America is much perturbed. Here is a mystery worth detecting. Our own statesmen have usually agreed that the Monroe Doctrine is merely a policy of self - defense, but Latin - American statesmen pronounce its application a policy of military offense. The Monroe Doctrine has been interpreted by our own orators to include every dream of international idealism, every altruistic neighborly purpose, every noble aspiration for the world's welfare, and these are the impressions left in the minds of many North Americans. But the policies which the world links with the Monroe Doctrine are those in defense of commerce, big business, economic exploitation and financial overlordship. It is this aspect of our relations to Latin-American countries which has so filled their citizens with dread of unhappy possibilities. North and South agree fairly well upon two points : (1) That the definition and authority of the Doctrine are obscure ; (2) that its power is dependent upon the strength and skill of the army and navy. In the words of Professor James Milford Garner in his "American Foreign Policies" : "If Monroe were alive today he would be quite unable to recognize the policy which bears his honored name but which is not, in fact, his offspring." When President Monroe, on December 2, 1923, over one hundred and five years ago, in a message to Congress issued the famed pronouncement, there was certain cause for anxiety from the possible aggression of powerful European nations. The monarchs of Austria, Prussia, and Russia had united in what was called "The Holy Alliance," agreeing to rule according to "the principles which the Divine Savior had taught to mankind." The principles of the Divine Savior, as they conceived them, were to suppress any attempts at representative government and to make the world safe and comfortable for kings. They secured the alliance of France and made connection with England. They looked with aspirations upon the vast rich territory of the Western Hemisphere with its small population and weak governments. Had there been less distrust among themselves, the rising democratic governments in the West might have been overturned before they had fairly begun. The rumors of the plans of the kings continued to reach the United States ; the leaders of our government became alarmed and were not willing to wait supinely to be attacked. Something must be done ! The Republic therefore spoke and did it in the form of a President's message. Many heads and hands took part in its preparation and edited it thoroughly, which is probably the reason why it is so difficult to understand. In making the commas and prepositions satisfactory to all they dropped out some of its verbs. President Monroe, who, it is said, did not write it and had little to do with its preparation, then presented it to Congress. The message, thoroughly abridged, is in effect this : If any of you dare to bring your armies over to this hemisphere and take land for colonization, or attempt to foist a king where no king now is, we shall fight. Beware! To be sure, no diplomat or lawyer ever wrote a state paper in language so crude, nor so understandable. The language was far more elegant, but much more confused and Courtesy of the New York Public Library Washington, a few years after the Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed as a warning to Europe's kings. In the succeeding century everything has changed except the Doctrine Courtesy of the Municipal Art Commission, N. Y. James Monroe, who, it is said did not write the Doctrine that bears his name clumsy. The difficulty of understanding the Monroe Doctrine is chiefly due to the fact that after the threat was issued to the big kings of Europe, interpretations and reservations and clarifications were added as to when it would and when it would not apply. I do not know when the habit of making reservations began in the United States, but certainly there are plenty of good examples in the Monroe Doctrine. If the President and his associates had said exactly what they meant, it would have been equivalent to an invitation to declare war, and they were ill prepared to meet such an engagement. They therefore buried the threat in a bouquet of words where the kings would not fail to find it, but could "save their faces" by pretending not to have seen or heard of it. False Hopes Aroused THE message was hailed with joy throughout Latin-American countries, for in each a revolution had successfully been conducted, or an uprising against the mother country, Spain or Portugal, was in progress or anticipated. All of the Latin-American countries were weak and in need of allies and they read more into the Monroe Doctrine than was intended. In Spanish America many an aspiring hero saw himself in tassel and spur, sword and buckler, riding away on a noble charger in a famous joust with the vexing kings of Europe, while the United States furnished most of the men and money and looked after the wounded. The revolutions went on, but the United States never rendered military assistance, and this, I found, had been an abiding cause of resentment since 1823. The prompt recognition of independence when achieved, always heralded here as a liberal and noble deed, is regarded by our Southern neighbors as a cheap gesture when compared with the bold and grandiloquent Monroe threat as they had understood it. The first Latin ardor for the Monroe Doctrine cooled and irritation set in a century ago. In our day statesmen have put in clearer terms than the original what they understand that Mr. Monroe meant to say. Mr. Hughes, for example, says the Doctrine today is quite unchanged and means that this nation will regard as unfriendly (1) "any non-American action encroaching upon the political independence of American states under any guise" and (2) "the acquisition in any manner of the control of additional territory in this hemisphere by any non-American power." One cannot read this clear and simple statement without wishing that Mr. Hughes had been president when the famous message was written It might have saved a century of irritated nerves. A second thought makes one wonder whether Mr. Hughes with his calm, scholarly mind, had he been president in 1823, would have written so plain a challenge as his interpretation to that galaxy of kings with real armies at their backs, each threatening to descend upon his struggling little republic. It must be easier to define the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 in simple phrases now that kings are so long dead, their thrones so dusty with non-use, and none of the Fathers of the Republic present to contradict. The absence of authority for the Monroe Doctrine is curious. The American Monroe Doctrine, it is called. It was not Monroe's production ; he merely presented it to Congress ; and a glance at a dictionary will convince anyone that it is not a doctrine. There is no validity in a presidential message to Congress unless Congress responds by taking action. Congress did not take action. Shortly after President Monroe presented his message to Congress, Henry Clay attempted to have Congress adopt the Doctrine in the form of a resolution, but he did not secure the necessary cooperation and no successful attempt has been made since to give it the mandate of Congressional approval. The message was designed for Europe and especially for the kings and their representatives, and not for Congress. The Doctrine has been often endorsed by party platforms, as it was by those of 1928, but no party attempts to enlighten the public as to what it understands the Doctrine to mean. It has also been endorsed without definition by Congress. Mr. Hoover and Mr. Smith endorsed it in interviews or speeches, but neither defined it. Whenever a treaty is under consideration, a number of Senators are on their feet either demanding that the Monroe Doctrine be protected by a reservation, or asking solicitously whether any of its prerogatives will be disturbed by the treaty. The responses indicate a unanimity of senatorial anxiety to protest a policy which they appear to regard as sacred, but they never define it. In my amateurish efforts to understand why Latin-America is so resentful toward the so-called Doctrine, I have wondered why Congress, so united in support of it, has not adopted it in some legalized form, in order to quiet the criticism. I now know. All Congressmen and Senators believe in the Monroe Doctrine, but there is wide difference of opinion among them as to what they believe. I am confirmed in this view-- which is not in the least cynical--by Mr. Hughes's recent comment concerning objections to the Monroe Doctrine. Said he ( page 15, Relations to the Nations of the Western Hemisphere ) : "If we sought to abandon it, we might have as much trouble in showing what we had abandoned as we have in dealing with the Doctrine itself." An Out-of-Date Policy PLEASE NOTE: We have something, we do not quite know what. One hundred and five years have passed since we came by it. There is no possibility of any European power overwhelming representative government in this Western Hemisphere and setting up a king ; indeed, most of those nations have themselves adopted our form of government. There is as small chance of the seizure of territory for colonization. No nation is colonizing in the old way now. The causes which brought forth the Monroe Doctrine have gone forever and the tables have been completely turned. The pert little republic thumbing its nose at big crowned kings a century ago is now, in the words of From a painting by Arturo Michelena Simon Bolivar, the George Washington of Latin American, who won his victories without our assistance South America, "the Colossus of the North." It contains more millionaires than any other nation ever had, and the richest Croesus of all history was a poor beggar compared with several unboastful Americans. Its trade penetrates every port and it furnishes the world's best market. The most powerful king in the world today is money, and the thing the world fears most is the aggression of our money power. Under these circumstances it is odd that there must be a reservation in every treaty and that a bigger navy is always needed to protect the Monroe Doctrine. The Panama Canal, of which Mr. Monroe never dreamed, has much aggravated home pride and foreign suspicion. When the Canal was in the process of building, the undertaking was pictured as a noble, altruistic enterprise, conducted as a charitable assistance to every nation but ourselves, who expected to have difficulty with the home tax-payers in raising the money to pay its running expenses. The Panama Canal, instead of being a financial liability, became an enormous asset, and at once Congress, the parties, and the patriots recognized it as an intriguing military temptation. It must have forts and more forts to keep the designing enemy from taking it away from us ; it must have cruisers, plenty of them, to drive the foe from our long coast line. The flotilla of our warships, big and little ; our submarines ; our airplanes, go there for manoeuvers, and after an imaginary war with an imaginary foe that always overcomes the loyal Canal defenders and takes the Canal, there is a fresh appeal for more preparedness to defend it. No psychology could produce suspicion more certainly than the orations about the Canal, the attempted legislation for fortifications, and the military manoeuvers undertaken in its neighborhood. So some have said "Let us lay aside the Doctrine since it has served its uses and is now obsolete," but Mr. Hughes says we cannot discard a thing in legal terms unless we can define in legal terms what we are giving up. The Doctrine and the League A CHANCE incident throws light on the character of the Monroe Doctrine. President Wilson returned to the United States while the Covenant of the League of Nations was still incomplete, and hearing the rumors of hostility to the document whose provisions were still unknown, asked Mr. Taft, then the president of the League to Enforce Peace, to draft a paragraph that might be inserted in the Covenant and that would tend to satisfy the rising opposition. I was prepared, and upon the supposition that this would help to ensure senatorial ratification, it was included in the Covenant as Article XXI. It reads : "Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine for securing the maintenance of peace." This is the nearest approach ever made to the recognition of the Monroe Doctrine in a document of authority, unless we except treaties and the foundation of the Hague Tribunal. In after years it is likely to be pronounced the most amusing sentence ever written. It reminds me of the definition of a crab in a French dictionary--a red fish that crawls backward. Cuvier, the French naturalist, declared the definition quite correct with the exception that a crab is not a fish, nor is it red, nor does it crawl backward. So the Monroe Doctrine has no validity, is not an international engagement, nor a regional understanding --either of which requires two parties ; nor has it ever claimed to be an instrument for the maintenance of peace, nor does it bear any resemblance to a treaty or arbitration. International Bewilderment DISTRAIT Mr. Taft, distracted Mr. Wilson, bewildered League of Nations -- together they wrought a world poser. Sooner or later a wise joker or serious statesman would certainly challenge Article XXI. The opportunity was seized by Costa Rica, which inquired of the League Council a few months ago the meaning and significance of Article XXI. The press reported the Council to be greatly perturbed by the question, but after locking itself behind closed doors for a time the members issued forth smilingly and sent the only possible answer--We do not understand Article XXI. The parties to regional understandings and international agreements are the only ones who know what is meant by such compacts. The Monroe Doctrine is not an agreement, and over and over American statesmen have assured South America that there never will be more than one party to it. It should be clear that if any one ever knows what that Doctrine is the United States must singly and alone pronounce the definition. Congress has the authority to define it, but obviously it will not. The next election might return another Congress that would redefine it, to the utter mortification and confusion of all concerned. In the period when there was a controversy as to whether the earth was round or flat, those who believed it flat said : "That which is believed everywhere and by all comes from God." With similar faith nearly all citizens of the United States believe in the Monroe Doctrine because everyone else does. One man writes in the New York Times : "When the honorable gentleman says I am opposed to the Monroe Doctrine he lies in his throat. I said that I do not know what the Monroe Doctrine is, but I am in favor of it and am prepared to defend it with the last drop of my blood." The Monroe Doctrine is something to which one hundred per cent patriotic Americans give allegiance. In Latin America, one hundred per cent patriots give unequivocal opposition and condemnation to it. The editor of the most important paper in South America, commenting upon the thirty interventions of the United States in the Latin-American countries, writes : "The Doctrine of Monroe is the shield and buckler of United States aggression ; it is a sword suspended by a hair over the Latin continents." "John Hay once coupled the Monroe Doctrine with the Golden Rule as cardinal elements in our foreign policy." (Pamphlet, The Monroe Doctrine --World Peace, by Kirby Page.) Such wide difference of interpretation as a sword hung by a hair and the Golden Rule can only breed mischief, and the possible incapacity of the United States to get the matter right is a curious factor in the situation. The century of growth, expansion, and prosperity which has been the lot of the United States since Mr. Monroe's day had developed an extensive and a varied foreign policy. That policy differs very little from that of other great powers. It is imperialistic in its nature and militaristic in its spirit. That policy would, undoubtedly, have been ours had the Monroe Doctrine never been written. It would have been a highly noble thing if, on the centenary of the Monroe Doctrine, the statesmen of this country had defined that Doctrine, given it an authentic history, and discharged it as a policy whose honorable work was done. Since they did not do so, each Secretary of State interprets it anew. Our Secretaries of State have been great men, but the custom of leaving the interpretation of a crucial policy to one man or a few men, with cruisers and marines to follow their order, without action by Congress and no chance of information for the people, seems a dangerously old-fashioned one. An Obstacle to Peace THE Monroe Doctrine, undefined and unauthorized, is an obstacle to peace and good will. At this time, when the nations are attempting to find a way to live together amicably, it is obviously important that all questions which have a disturbing influence upon good relations should be talked through to general understanding. The citizens of our own country, as well as those of the entire Western world, are entitled to know what the Doctrine is, where it came from, what it meant when it came, and where it is now leading. To this end I entreat you to read, study, reflect, discuss, debate, and investigate the Monroe Doctrine. A considerable library of new literature on the subject, by no means in agreement, invites your attention. In a recent discussion on the Monroe Doctrine it was desired to secure one speaker who would represent our Government's point of view and twenty-four notable persons were invited and declined. The twenty-fifth, a military man, accepted. Ten years ago the first man invited would have accepted. The time to move concerning the Monroe Doctrine apparently has come. What the nation thinks about it today it will not think twenty-five years hence. Copies of this reprint may be obtained from the NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON THE CAUSE AND CURE OF WAR 1015 Grand Central Terminal Building New York City. Price 5c [*Monroe Doctrine 1st page missing*] 2. arbitration treaties among the nations of these two continents will prevent actual war, but the emotional frame of mind which creates war is latent in many of the Latin countries and the source of their discontent is what many believe the Monroe Doctrine to be. Our own statesmen have usually agreed that the Monroe Doctrine is merely a policy of self-defense, but Latin-American statesmen pronounce its application a policy of military offense. The Monroe Doctrine has been interpreted by our own orators to include every dream of international idealism, every altruistic neighborly purpose, every noble aspiration for the world's welfare, and these are the impressions left in the minds of many North Americans; but the policies which the world links with the Monroe Doctrine are those in defense of commerce, big business, economic exploitation, and financial overlordship. It is this aspect of our relations to Latin countries which has so filled their citizens with dread of unhappy possibilities. North and South agree fairly well upon two points: - (1) That 3. the definition and authority of the Doctrine are obscure; (2) That its power is dependent upon the strength and skill of the army and navy. The controversies involved in these two agreements are sufficient to keep trouble brewing for a long time to come. When Signor Madariaga, however, pronounced "the Monroe Doctrine the most formidable obstacle to the peace of the world", he was emphatically wrong. Other nations have foreign policies in which the most offensive phases charged to the Monroe Doctrine are the chief impulses. Great Britain had such a policy for centuries before the United States was born. It was Minister Canning who suggested the policy and proposed that England and the United States should issue jointly the announcement which became the Monroe Doctrine. There seems some mystery about the reason which altered this plan. The modern British policy so closely resembles the American that it has been called the British Monroe Doctrine. France and Italy have each a vast empire and an extensive sphere of interest in which the same policies are pursued by what might be called 4. the French and Italian Monroe Doctrines. Japan has followed faithfully the example of the West and certain Japanese writers and statesmen have proposed the announcement of a Japanese Monroe Doctrine. It will be observed that only nations possessing big navies and armies, men and money, maintain these policies and that whatever else the foreign policy of these nations may include, it is in effect a control, in full or in some degree, of the destiny of nations, regions, or even continents without the consent and often contrary to the will of those peoples who live therein. This kind of policy bears no relation to anything in the Monroe Doctrine. It has grown up since Monroe died. [In fact] The big world is divided into five chief regions over which five great powers exercise a political and financial influence, regarded at home as altruistic and "the white man's burden", but in the regions controlled usually it is regarded as mercenary dictatorship. The control means valuable extensions of trade, markets and profits to the controlling nations and often presents favoring circumstances which win enormous financial or other advantages for the nation or some of its citizens in frequent and mysterious games of international politics. The same policies are applied by Holland to her 10,000 islands in 5. the East Indies, by Spain and Portugal to their outlying spheres. [and] These policies, indeed, are a universal standard of action. Had Signor Madariaga said that these policies, each exercised by a Great Power, were together the most formidable obstacles to world peace, I would have applauded the comment. These phases of our foreign policy have come since the day of President Monroe. That they are connected with it at all furnishes one of the most important clues for the detective. In the words of Professor Garner: "If Monroe were alive to-day, he would be quite unable to recognize the policy which bears his honored name but which is not, in fact, his offspring." When President Monroe, on December 2, 1823, one hundred and six years ago, in a message to Congress, issued the famed pronouncement [ which bears his name], there was certain cause for anxiety from the possible aggression of powerful European nations. The monarchs of Austria, Prussia, and Russia had united in what was called "The Holy Alliance," agreeing to rule according to "the principles which the Divine Savior has taught to mankind." The principles of the Divine Savior, as they conceived them, were to suppress any 6. attempts at representative government and to make the world safe and comfortable for Kings. They secured the alliance of France and made connection with England. They looked with aspirations upon the vast rich territory of the Western Hemisphere with its small population and weak governments. Had there been less distrust among themselves, the rising democratic governments in the West might have been overturned before they had fairly begun. The rumors of the plans of the Kings continued to reach the United States; the leaders of our government became alarmed and were not willing to wait supinely to be attacked. Something must be done! The Republic therefore spoke and did it in the form of a President's message. Many heads and hands took part in its preparation and edited it thoroughly, which is probably the reason why it is so difficult to understand. In making the commas and prepositions satisfactory to all they dropped out some of its meaning. President Monroe, who, it is said, did not write it and had little to do with its preparation, then presented it to Congress. The message, thoroughly abridged, is in effect this: If any of your dare to bring your armies over to this hemisphere 7. and take land for colonization, or attempt to foist a King where no King now is, we shall fight. Beware! To be sure, no diplomat or lawyer ever wrote a state paper in language so crude, nor so understandable. The language was far more elegant, but much more confused and clumsy. The difficulty of understanding the Monroe Doctrine is chiefly due to the fact that after the threat was issued to the big Kings of Europe, interpretations and reservations and clarifications were added as to when it would and when it would not apply. I do not know when the habit of making reservations began with the United States: certainly there are plenty of good examples in the Monroe Doctrine. If the President and his associates had said exactly what they meant, it would have been equivalent to an invitation to declare war, and they were illy prepared meet an engagement. They therefore buried the threat in a bouquet of words where the Kings would not fail to find but could "save their faces" by pretending not to have seen or heard of it. The message was hailed with joy throughout Latin-America countries, for in each a revolution had successfully been conducted, or an uprising against the mother country, Spain or Portugal was in progress or anticipated. All of the Latin countries were weak and in need of allies 8. and they read more into it than was intended. In Spanish America many an aspiring hero saw himself in tassel and spur, sword and buckler, riding away on a charger in a famous joust with the vexing Kings of Europe, while the United States furnished most of the men and money and looked after the wounded. The revolutions went on, but the United States rendered no military assistance, and this, I found, had been an abiding cause of resentment since 1823. The prompt recognition of independence when achieved, always heralded as a liberal and noble deed here, is regarded by our southern neighbors as a cheap gesture when compared with the bold and grandiloquent Monroe threat as they had understood it. The first Latin ardor for the Monroe Doctrine cooled and irritation set in a century ago. In our day statesmen have put in clearer terms than the original what they understand that Mr. Monroe meant to say. Mr. Hughes, for example, says the Doctrine to-day is quite unchanged and means that this nation will regard as unfriendly (1) "any non-American action encroaching upon the political independence of American states under any guise 9. and (2) the acquisition in any manner of the control of additional territory in this hemisphere by any non-american power." One cannot read this clear and simple statement without wishing that Mr. Hughes had been president when the famous message was written. It might have saved a century of irritated nerves. A second thought makes one wonder, whether if Mr. Hughes, with his calm, clear, scholarly mind, had been president in 1823, he would have written so plain a challenge as his interpretation, to that galaxy of Kings with real armies at their backs, each threatening to descend upon his struggling little Republic. It must be easier to define the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 in simple phrases now that Kings are so long dead, and their thrones so dusty with non-use, with none of the Fathers of the Republic [are] present to contradict. The absence of authority for the Monroe Doctrine is curious. The American Monroe Doctrine, it is called. It was not American; it was English. It was not Monroe's production; he merely presented it to Congress , and a glance at a dictionary will convince anyone that it is not a doctrine. There is no validity in a presidential message to Congress unless Congress responds by taking 10. action. Congress did not take action. Shortly after President Monroe presented his message to Congress, Henry Clay attempted to have Congress adopt the Doctrine in the form of a resolution, but he did not secure the necessary cooperation and no successful attempt has been made since to give it the mandate of Congressional approval. The message was designed for Europe and especially for the Kings and their representatives, and not for Congress. The Doctrine has been often endorsed by party platforms, as it was by those of 1928, but no party attempts to enlighten the public as to what it understands the Doctrine to mean. It has also been endorsed without definition by Congress. Mr. Hoover and Mr. Smith endorsed it in interviews or speeches, but neither defined it. Whenever a treaty is under consideration, a number of Senators are on their feet either demanding that the Monroe Doctrine be protected by a reservation or asking solicitusly whether any of its prerogatives will be disturbed by the treaty. The responses indicate a unanimity of Senatorial anxiety to [protect] a policy which they appear to regard as sacred, but they never define it. In my amateurish efforts to understand why Latin America is so resentful 11. toward the so-called Doctrine, I have wondered why Congress, so united in support of it, has not adopted it in some legalized form in order to quiet the criticism. I now know. All Congressmen and Senators believe in the Monroe Doctrine, but there is wide difference of opinion among them as to what they believe. I am confirmed in this view - which is not in the least cynical - by Mr. Hughes' recent comment concerning objections to the Monroe Doctrine. Said he (page 15, Relations to the Nations of the Western Hemisphere) "If we sought to abandon it, we might have as much trouble in showing what we had abandoned as we have in dealing with the doctrine itself." Please note: we have something; we do not quite know what. One hundred and six years have passed since we came by it. There is no possibility of any European power overwhelming representative government in this Western Hemisphere and setting up a King, because most of those nations have themselves adopted our form of government. There is as small chance of the seisure of territory for colonization: no nation is colonizing in the old way now. The causes which brought forth the Monroe Doctrine have gone forever and the tables have been completely turned. The pert little Republic thumbing its nose at big crowned Kings a 12. century ago is now, in the words of South America. "The Colossus of the North." It contains more millionaires than any other nation ever had and the richest Croesus of all history was a poor beggar compared with several unboastful Americans. Its trade penetrates every port and it furnishes the world's best market. The most powerful king in the world to-day is money and the thing the world fears most is the aggression of our money power. Under these circumstances it is odd that there is so much anxiety to protect the Monroe Doctrine. The Panama Canal, of which Mr. Monroe never dreamed, has much aggravated home pride and foreign suspicion. When the Canal was in the process of building, the undertaking was pictured as a noble, altruistic enterprise conducted as a charitable assistance to every nation but ourselves, who expected to have difficulty with the home taxpayers in raising the money to pay its running expenses. The Panama Canal, instead of being a financial liability, became an enormous asset and at once Congress, the parties, and the patriots recognized it as an intriguing military temptation. It must have forts and more forts to keep the designing enemy from taking it away from us; it must have cruisers, plenty of them, to drive the foe from our 13. long coast line. The flotilla of our warships, big and little; our submarine; our airplanes go there for [mano??vers] and after an imaginary war with an imaginary foe that always overcomes the loyal Canal defenders and takes the Canal, there is a fresh appeal for more preparedness to defend it. No psychology could produce suspicion more certainly than the oration about the Canal, the attempted legislation for fortifications and the military manoeuvers undertaken in its neighborhood We are renouncing war; we are arranging to submit all our quarrels to some form of peaceful settlement. If it were possible to renounce certain types of war oratory and war manoeuvers there would be more confidence in the peace pacts. So some have said "Let us lay aside the Doctrine since it has served its uses and is now obsolete", but Mr. Hughes says we cannot discard a thing in legal terms unless we understand in legal terms what we are giving up. A chance incident throws light on the character of the Monroe Doctrine. President Wilson returned to the United States while the Covenant of the League of Nations was still incomplete and hearing 14. the rumors of hostility to the document whose provisions were still unknown, asked Mr. Taft, then the president of the League to Enforce Peace, to draft a paragraph that might be inserted in the Covenant and which would tend to satisfy the rising opposition. It was prepared, and upon the supposition that this would help to ensure Senatorial ratification, it was included in the Covenant as Article XXI. It reads: "Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine for securing the maintenance of peace." This is the nearest approach ever made to the recognition of the Monroe Doctrine in a document of authority. In after years it is likely to be pronounced the most amusing sentence ever written. It reminds one of the definition of a crab in a French dictionary - a red fish that crawls backward. Cuvier, the French naturalist, declared the definition quite correct with the exceptions that a crab is not a fish, nor is it red, nor does it crawl backward. So the Monroe Doctrine has no validity, is not an international engagement nor a regional understanding, either of which requires two 15. parties, nor has it ever claimed to be an instrument for the maintenance of peace, nor does it bear any resemblance to a treaty of arbitration. Distrait Mr. Taft, distracted Mr. Wilson, bewildered League of Nations - together they wrought a world poser. Sooner or later a wise joker or serious statesman would certainly challenge Article XXI. The opportunity was siezed by Costa Rica, which inquired of the League Council a few months ago the meaning and significance of Article XXI. The Press reported the Council to be greatly perturbed by the question, but after locking itself behind closed doors for a time the members issued forth smilingly and sent the only possible answer. We do not understand Article XXI. The parties to regional understandings and international agreements are the only ones who know what is meant by such compacts. The Monroe Doctrine is not an agreement and over and over American statesmen have assured South America that there never will be more than one party to it. It should be clear that if anyone ever knows what that Doctrine is the United States singly and alone must pronounce the definition. 16. Congress alone has the authority to define it, but obviously it will not. The next election might return another Congress that would redefine it, to the utter mortification and confusion of all concerned. In the period when there was a controversy as to whether the earth was round or flat, those who believed it flat said: "That which is believed everywhere and by all comes from God." With similar faith nearly all citizens of the United States believe in the Monroe Doctrine because everyone else does. One man writes in the New York Times, "When the honorable gentleman says I am opposed to the Monroe Doctrine he lies in his throat. I said that I do not know what the Monroe Doctrine is, but I am in favor of it and am prepared to defend it with the last drop of my blood." This man is not eccentric; he is merely more truthful than most. In Latin America, if not at home, the people have not been unobservant of the phase of our history descrived by an eminent American and quoted by Professor James Welford Garner (pg. 70 17. American Foreign Policies 1928): Our own history since independence is an unbroken record of extension and imperialism. Our contiguous territories have been acquired by compulsion, whether of war, or purchase, or occupation, or of exchange. We have taken advantage of others' dire necessities in the case of Great Britain, France, Spain, Russia, and Mexico. To rectify our frontier we compelled the Gadsden Purchase within the writer's lifetime. As to our non-contiguous possessions, we hold them by the right of conquest or revolution, salving our consciences with such cash indemnity as we ourselves have chosen to pay. . . . . In no single instance of virtual annexation or protectorate have we consulted by popular vote either the desires of those inhabiting the respective territories annexed or The Hague Tribunal. In every case, we have had one single plea and one only - self-interest." In the United States these are phases of foreign policy that we have failed to notice, and without defining it the Monroe Doctrine in something to which 100% patriotic Americans give allegiance. In Latin America, 100% patriots to give unequivocal opposition and condemnation to it. The editor of the most important paper in South America, commenting upon the thirty interventions of the United States in the Latin countries, writes: "The Doctrine of Monroe is 18. the shield and buckler of United States aggression; it is a sword suspended by a hair over the Latin continents." "John Hay once coupled the Monroe Doctrine with the Golden Rule as cardinal elements in our foreign policy." (Pamphlet, The Monroe Doctrine-World Peace by Kirby Page.) Such wide differences of interpretation can only breed mischief, and the possible incapacity of the United States to set the matter right is a problem worth considering. The century of growth, expansion, and prosperity which has been the lot of the United States since Mr. Monroe's day has developed an extensive and a varied foreign policy. That policy differs very little from that of other great powers. It is imperialistic in its nature and military in its spirit. That policy would, undoubtedly, have been ours had the Monroe Doctrine never been written. It would have been a highly noble thing if, on the centenary of the Monroe Doctrine, the statesmen of this country had defined that Doctrine, given it an authentic history, and discharged it as a policy whose work was completed. Since they did not do so, each Secretary of State interprets it anew. Our Secretaries of State 19. have been great men, but the custom of leaving the interpretation of our policies to one man or a few men with cruisers and marines to follow their order, without action by Congress and no chance of information for the people, seems a dangerously old-fashioned one. The Monroe Doctrine, undefined and unauthorized, is an obstacle to peace and good will. At this time, when the nations are attempting to find a way to live together amicably, it is obviously important that all questions which have a disturbing influence upon good relations should be talked through to general understanding. The citizens of our own country, as well as those of the entire western world, are entitled to know what the Doctrine is, where it came from, what it meant when it came, and where it is now leading. To this end I entreat the Committee on the Cause and Cure of War to read, study, reflect, discuss, debate, and push investigation of the Monroe Doctrine hard and far. A considerable library of new literature on the subject, by no means in agreement, invites your attention. In a recent discussion on the Monroe Doctrine it was desired to secure one speaker who would represent our Government's point of view 20. and twenty-four notable persons were invited and declined. The twen ty-fifth, a military man, accepted. The time to move concerning the Monroe Doctrine has come. January, 1928 9 A Word to General Pershing "The Way to Obtain Peace Is to Prepare for War," Said the General. A Mighty Movement Affirms That "The Way to Obtain Peace Is to Prepare for Peace" By CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT WE venture the guess that when the editor of McCall's Magazine sent out a widely distributed announcement that the November issue would carry "probably the most important message addressed to American women since the war," he really didn't notice the part that is in truth important. There is a sentence or two in that article which will be quoted for the next hundred years, and some hundreds of pens are already suspended in mid-air awaiting a fit opportunity. The article was a kindly letter to the Gold Star Mothers by General John J. Pershing. General Pershing is a friendly soul, a big-hearted gentleman, a truly noble man, a hero and a great general. I am one of his staunch admirers, and I do not want any one to make a mistake about that when I point out one weak spot in his armor. I gloried as much as the editor in the splendid tributes he paid to war mothers and to women's patriotic services, for he is one man who really respects women. Thanks to you, noble General ! But--at this moment another one of those mighty movements which reverse public thinking, overturn institutions and set history in another direction, is surging through the world, the tide rising higher day by day. There is no question about its final triumph, the date alone being uncertain. It is a movement that will establish a new truism : the way to obtain peace is to prepare for peace ; that is, organize for it, commit the nations to it, set up courts to settle disputes and parliaments to make the law by which they may be settled justly. Right into the swirl of the breakers of this movement strode the General, and, not observing what was in progress, unfurled a rusty old banner in the middle of his beautiful letter, and shouted at the top of his voice an outworn slogan : "The way to obtain peace is to prepare for war!" That's the sentence that will be quoted for a century. Why? Because, though it is not true, many people think it is. The General attempted to convert all the Gold Star Mothers to that antique philosophy. Whew! We thought that standardized bit of military education taught to every soldier in every camp since the days of Nebuchadnezzar had been buried with appropriate obsequies some time back, and yet General Pershing does not know it is dead. Of course, it was driven into his head when a boy and he cannot forget it, so he is forgiven. He makes the quotation from George Washington, but that hero and General said another thing : "My first wish, I repeat, my first wish is to see this plague of mankind [war] banished from the earth." The Father of his Country wanted peace, and believed in it, but he did not know how to get it. He could only fall back helplessly upon the universally accepted principle that "the way to obtain peace is to prepare for war." General Pershing wants peace but knows only the rule that General Washington had for getting it. For one hundred and forty years since Washington's day, every advanced nation in the world has followed that rule, prepared for war, and the wars have come and come again. Germany was prepared to "the last buckle on the last strap." Where is she now? She is saving all the tax money other nations are spending on war maintenance and has prepared for peace by ringing herself round with arbitration treaties--efficient Germany ! She knows better than any one else that the dependable way to obtain peace is NOT to prepare for war but to prepare for peace. Look at China "NEVER yet has lack of preparation prevented attack by an aggressive foe," repeats the General from the old training book. Why, yes. China is just such an example. As Germany got into trouble by having too trim a preparedness, so China is keeping out by having none. The gunboats of all the nations are in the Yangtse, but there isn't a thing to fire at. The Chinese have men and arms, but they are using them over in the interior, fighting each other. The allied nations are stopped, but not by guns. The missionaries have made a million or so Christian converts in China, and somehow they seem to have got the idea better than some of the people back home. When a general goes ashore to talk things over, he has to find men who know some other language than Chinese, and when they are found they are probably Christians and have been graduated at Cambridge or Harvard or some other foreign university, and have a disconcerting way of quoting from the Magna Charta, the Rights of Man, the Declaration of Independence, or making baffling references to the biblical beating of swords into plowshares. Or, perchance, they may say that "Christ was an Oriental and the West has really never understood him." The general returns to this ship, remembering the Chinese adage that a "jellyfish cannot be hung on a nail," and wires his home government that he doesn't know what he thinks. Germany and China have upset all the military rules of the age, even if all the generals do not know it. The Professors' Verdict HARDLY had the guns in Europe ceased firing before a thousand university professors stuck their trained noses into dusty documents to see what it was all about. They spoke all kinds of languages and had access to different sources, but they lifted their heads after a few years and spoke with one common conclusion. They said, all together : The things you people thought you were fighting for were not true at all ; the real cause of that war were the jealousies and the rivalries and the competitions in preparedness. It was the war system that blew up. In other words, the way to obtain war is to prepare for war and to get a good competi- (Continued on page 37) 10 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL Ruth Bryan Owen An Intimate Study of the Daughter of a Famous Father Who Is Following His Lead Into the Political Field By CONSTANCE MARSHALL c Marceau Studio Mrs. Owen SOMETIMES by way of wealth or birth or a brilliant husband, fate give prominence to the dullest women, while the lives of the cleverest ones are the most obscure. But once in a while, with an especially generous gesture, she makes some lucky mortal magnet for twofold gifts. One of these fortunate persons is Mrs. Ruth Bryan Owens. Besides the prestige which goes with being the daughter of William Jennings Bryan, she has had the good fortune to inherit some of his outstanding characteristics --his genial, likable personality, for instance, and his capacity for being "folksy" with people, both individually and in audiences, as well as his oratorical abilities. His mental bents she has, too (with variations), and whether by hereditary outcropping or by force of shining example, she takes the same active interest in public affairs, including politics. Two years ago Mrs. Owen ran for Congress on the Democratic ticket from the Fourth Congressional district of Florida and as she was defeated by the narrowest of margins (for three days they did not know the outcome and it was found finally that she had lost by only a handful of votes) she will seek again the same nomination in June. Tall, slender, exuberantly full of vitality, one would never think of Mrs. Owen as a "serious-minded" person. Intellectual she is, but not flagrantly so. Her intelligence is thoroughly interfused with charm--her underlying assurance overlaid by a diffidence that is almost shyness. Meeting her alone in her home at Coral Gables (a lovely, homey home built in Spanish villa style and furnished with antiques culled from everywhere) or gazing across an auditorium at her as she stands on the platform one might mentally exclaim, "What a marvelous diplomat's wife she would make." In her personality, dignity, graciousness, charm, intelligence, and a certain fluent grace are all blended. But her intellectual bent? Her attitude toward the causes in whose aura she has moved and lived and of which she has heard since childhood ? As a reformer and espouser of causes Mrs. Owen is her father's daughter to only a mild degree. She is interested in reform measures, in schemes for the "uplift of humanity" certainly--witness the formidable list of organizations with which she is allied and for which she honestly, actively works. But before life as it ought to be, Mrs. Owen is concerned with life as it is. She is interested in living, in going to places, doing things, making friends, tasting life --first. Through these experiences indirectly but no less fervently she has been led to interest in causes and evils and issues. Three kinds of people, impelled by three kinds of motives, go forth to make straight the way of public affairs. Some like to pose in the public eye. Mrs. Owen is not one of these. Some are crusaders who press forward under the lash of a high ideal. Nor is Mrs. Owen precisely one of these. A third type of individual is drawn into politics almost without effort of will as writers are impelled to write and painters to make pictures, merely because it is the simple, natural, inevitable thing to do, and this Mrs. Owen's home on Florida January, 1928 37 A Word to Pershing (Continued from page 9) tion started. We thought the professors had convinced everybody. It seems they have not. Nevertheless, it is a bit shocking to see the old ghost walk again. Listen. Says the General : "If we dare say that another war is possible, they term us militarists. . . . But I ask you in all earnestness, who in our country is a militarist? Am I a militarist ? I have spent my life as an honest advocate of peace because I detest war." I read this article in the morning of a certain day, and I smiled as I saw that the brave hero was really irritated because he imagined some one had called him a militarist. In the afternoon I heard a distinguished Congressman speak. He declared himself for peace, and announced what he proposed doing when Congress convened. Then he added, with much vim, "But I am not a pacifist !" I smiled again. By all the laws of the dictionary, General Pershing is a militarist, an honorable professional militarist, and by the same authority the Congressman is an honorable pacifist. Isn't it pusillanimously ridiculous that two really great men have been so dazzled by poor, cheap talk that they are actually sensitive about being called by their rightful descriptive titles? The middle name of the United States is supposed to be efficiency. Well, here's a great general who wants peace and yet he is scared of the mysterious, unknown pacifists who are alleged-- naughty creatures--to have called him a militarist. And here are the pacifists wanting peace, wanting it intelligently, honorably, and unable to see straight because some ignoramuses have called them Red and they feel sore over it. Funny, isn't it ? How another generation will laugh over it. I will tell you what I wish. It is that some man, either great or holding a great position, would call together the chief militarists and the chief pacifists and let them have a week's discussion of war and peace. It might be a hot time for the first three days, but at the end of the week there would be no militarist or pacifist who would be ashamed to be called by his proper title. The militarists would have learned that very few want to interfere with legitimate preparedness for honest defense, but that there are plenty who oppose preparedness to the degree that it scares the neighbors. They would learn that pacifists are patriots of the finest variety. The pacifists would discover that militarists are honest advocates of peace and high-minded, noble Americans. Of course, this will not be done--it is too efficient. It wouldn't be good form. It is more in accord with the rules of society for each to call the other un-pretty names, misrepresent each other's character and motives, and go on contending for another century.. Of course, this makes life lively for the press and for the gossips, but if the generals really detest war and want peace, and the pacifists really detest war and want peace, it would save the waste of a century if they got together and spent a little time talking about a way to get what they all want. Wouldn't it ? The whole problem of war versus peace is all buttoned up in the simple contest between two slogans : "The way to obtain peace is to prepare for war," or "The way to obtain peace is to prepare for peace." The first is old ; the other new. Both methods are running at present, the first as an organized part of governments and at the cost of the taxpayer ; the other is pushing forward by voluntary work and contributions in the effort to change the first method to a better and newer one. The new idea is that those who prepare to the utmost for war get war ; those who prepare for peace get peace. By the old method every government manifested animosity toward its neighbor. By the new method it is proposed to build up "A constructive foreign policy based upon world cooperation instead of force." In other words, the old slogan of "Preparations for war get peace" is to be supplanted by a new slogan. "Those constructively, intelligently preparing for peace are going to get peace." The General adds a surprising bit. "Now," he writes, "we are engaged in another conflict, penetrating and insidious, led by so-called pacifists, demagogues and others who would undermine the foundations of free government. They employ even more dangerous weapons than shot and shell. Through unwholesome propaganda they would lure us out on the strange and uncharted seas of internationalism and communism." Really, General, this is unworthy of you ! What "pacifists, demagogues and others are undermining the foundations of free government" ? Where are they ? Who are they ? Who are using something worse than shot and shell ? What insidious propaganda is on foot ? If there are such designing persons, why does not the government drag them before its bar of justice ? We are trusting our government to defend us at home and abroad from enemies such as you describe. Why do you scare uninformed war mothers instead of placing your evidence before the government in order that it may act ? Why not at least name the enemy, so that timid souls shall not be plunged by these vague alarms into terror of any and every movement for peace and world friendship ? The story of the Third Conference on the Cause and Cure of War will appear in the February issue. Over 100 Colleges Are Represented In ALLERTON HOUSE Michigan at Huron Chicago Five Floors Exclusively for Women Eighteen Floors Exclusively for Men Extensive Comfortable Lounges Resident Women's Director Special Women's Elevators Fraternity Rooms Ball and Banquet Rooms Private Dining Rooms Outdoor Skating Circulating Library Billiards Chess Cafeteria Athletic Exercise Rooms The opportunity for social contact with a diversified gathering of executives, business and professional men and women is created by your residence at A L L E R T O N H O U S E combining the luxurious appointments and social atmosphere of a select club without initiation fees or dues. Allerton Glee Club in Main Dining Room Monday at 6:30 P. M. DON'T GIVE UP GOLF THIS WINTER The World's Largest Indoor Golf Course offers you an opportunity to improve your game during the winter months 18 Holes--Driving nets--Sand traps Professional in Charge. Instruction. Public invited. ALLERTON HOUSE WEEKLY RATES PER PERSON Single - - - - $12.00--$20.00 Double - - - $8.00--$15.00 Transient - - - $2.50--$3.50 Descriptive Leaflet on Request CHICAGO CLEVELAND NEW YORK When writing to the Allerton House, please mention the Woman's Journal 38 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL Ruth Bryan Owen (Continued from page 11) impressive atmosphere of affairs at the Capitol during her childhood and early young womanhood. If, too, Mrs. Owen is tolerant, gracious, unruffled by the exigencies and small tragedies that occur in her work, it may be partly because she has been privileged to travel about the world and to meet numberless varieties of people in it and so cultivate poise and breadth of vision. The wife of an officer in the English army, she has spent years of her life abroad ; three years in the West Indies, three in England, three in Egypt and three years traveling around the world, visiting all those imagination-stirring spots that most people know only vaguely by name. During the war she was a nurse in Palestine with the English army ; she was promoted from ward nurse to surgical and then to operating room nurse, and just before the armistice she went down to Port Said as an entertainer, singing for the boys in camp. This last experience has deepened and colored with emotion a conviction already intellectually strong, that peace, permanent and fool-proof, is an end toward which all citizens--statesmen and GRACE DODGE HOTEL WASHINGTON, D.C. A hotel distinctive for its charm and environment, and well known for its excellent food and service. Near beautiful Capitol grounds. Exceptional sight-seeing facilities. Open to men and women. No tipping. Write for booklet, "A Week in Washington" A Homelike Hotel For Women and Girls Traveling Alone Hotel Martha Washington Exclusively for Women 29 E. 29th St.-30 E. 30th St. New York City Rooms $2.00 to $3.00 Per Day Rooms and Bath $3.00 to $4.50 Per Day Special Weekly Rates RESTAURANT FOR LADIES AND GENTLEMEN Luncheon 60c Dinner $1.00 Take Lexington Ave. Subway to 28th Street Fairhope Winter School Fairhope, Alabama A School for Fathers, Mothers, Teachers, Social Workers and Children. Six Weeks' Course-- January 30th to March 10th, 1928 MARIETTA JOHNSON, Director For information address FAIRHOPE EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION 159 East 33d Street - New York City Telephone, Caledonia 2995 laymen--must work. In all her addresses, like Cato who terminated every speech he made on any subject with the final and familiar warning, "Carthage must be destroyed," Mrs. Owen strikes the same solemn impassioned note in her plea for--not war--but peace, and arbitration of international disagreements as a means to peace. Work toward this end constitutes one of three major ambitions which take shape in her mind as she looks forward to the position which she hopes to fill. Peace, of course, she would work for. Her father's daughter, a soldier's wife, an eye-witness of the tragedies of the world war, she could do no less. Florida, too, will enlist her efforts, heart and mind. This, also, goes without saying. One other ambition is more specifically her own. Distressed, as so many people are by the present-day flippant attitude toward citizenship and its responsibilities, she has come to the conclusion that the hope of the future--not the menace, as the alarmists cry--lies in our young people. The capacity for enthusiasm is still theirs. Cynical as their elders may have made them, they are not yet wholly calloused--not beyond redemption. Through her work in Miami University Mrs. Owen has come intimately into contact with young people, she has addressed groups of them in many colleges and secondary schools and she is convinced that they to whom we must "throw the torch" can "hold it high" and will, if we but help them-- and if elected, this she hopes to do. This political fling will be staged, as was her previous essay at politics, in the simplest, most dignified campaign, characterized mainly by a strenuous program of speechmaking. Not only is all mudslinging on the part of her adherents taboo but so is even the mention of the opposing candidate and criticism of his record. Regarding her adroitness in avoiding speaking ill of her opponent, they tell a story. A voter came to the platform after she had made a speech one day and said, "What do you think of your opponent, Mrs. Owen ?" Mrs. Owen applied the Socratic method of giving back question for question. "Have you been a resident here for some time?" she asked. When the voter admitted that he had, she said, "Then, if you haven't heard, I won't spoil the secret." Whatever the outcome may be-- whether it means a seat in Congress, the honor of being the first woman from the South to hold this office, an opportunity to put the sinew of reality into these ideals, or whether (as sometimes befalls the lustiest fighter) it means defeat, one may be sure that whatever Mrs. Owen does, she will never stand still. The study of the law beckons her, she has never had enough time to devote to her music, and besides these personal enthusiasms, organizations now in existence and organizations yet uncreated are waiting to enlist her attention. The current of her vitality is as endless as the range of her interests. A Club City (Continued from page 17) proaching holidays and seasonal drives, made our task an uphill one. Christmas 1922, found us short about $15,000 of the amount required to meet our January payment. It looked for a time as though we were doomed to defeat. But the Bank of Italy was persuaded to loan us the necessary amount. Then a spirited membership drive began and this first bank note was canceled January 29, 1923. Through persistent, almost superhuman effort, the last payment on the lot was made October, 1925. The Bank of Italy agreed to loan $650,000, and a second mortgage bond issue of $500,000 was successfully floated. Ground was broken February 14, 1926, and the building, which has been pronounced second to none of its kind in the world, was formally opened May 31, 1927. Its total investment, including furniture and equipment, is $1,750,000. The great new building stands near the shopping and theater district on the southwest corner of Sutter and Mason streets, and runs to a small avenue on SOUTH AMERICA IGUAZU FALLS Finest and Greatest of Cataracts Leave New York--Jaunuary 19th Rate--$1975 EASTER IN JERUSALEM Sailing from New York-- S.S. "Mauretania"-- February 21st Rate--$1695 OTHER UNUSUAL TRIPS North Africa; Cruise of Royal Yacht-- Prince Olav--to Mediterranean; Easter Holiday Cruises to Bermuda, West Indies and Florida; Special Motor Trips in Europe. Booklets and complete information on request World Acquaintance Tours 51 West 49th St. - New York City Telephone, Circle 2511 Box Z When writing to the above advertisers, please mention the Woman's Journal 28 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL The National Committee on the Cause and Cure of War Proposes a Campaign. Its Slogan Is "BUILD FRIENDSHIPS, NOT WARSHIPS, FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE" By CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT Decoration by Poly A GREAT movement is sweeping over the world to substitute some form of arbitration for war when disputes arise between nations. Very many citizens know little or nothing about this movement, which is expressed in the Briand-Kellogg negotiations now going on among the great Powers for a multilateral treaty renouncing war. The National Committee on the Cause and Cure of War has just determined to carry the news of these negotiations to as many people as possible, and to invite them to unite in expressions of public opinion supporting the proposed treaty. The campaign to renounce war among the Great Powers is not confined to the United States. Twenty-three organizations in Great Britain have united in a committee to conduct a similar campaign there. They will make a short, intense campaign in the autumn, beginning with a great public meeting in Albert Hall. The Committee on the Cause and Cure of War will name representatives from the United States to speak at that meeting. It is probable a similar great meeting will be held in New York and that British speakers will participate. The women of France and of Germany are also beginning to move in the same direction. War will disappear from the earth when women decide that the time has come. The above cartoon will give you an idea of what the National Committee wants to do : to demonstrate to the President and to the Congress (though not by an actual parade) that great numbers of women, as well as men, want the proposals to be written into a treaty and ratified by the United States Senate. The National Committee invites the nine organizations of which it is composed to call and to hold a conference in each of the forty-eight states, and in towns and cities, villages and rural districts, for the purpose of spreading public education concerning the proposals, their aim and meaning--a meeting at which a resolution may be presented for adoption. The main factor in the demonstration that public opinion wants the multilateral treaty written and ratified, will take the form of the following resolution passed many times : WHEREAS, the rising tide of public opinion throughout the world favors reason, not force, arbitration, not battles, as the means of settling disputes between nations ; and WHEREAS, world opinion is coming to regard war as an obsolete, ineffective and uncivilized instrument of national policy, albeit the institutions of peace are not yet completely agreed upon not fully established but are in the process of progressive and successful development ; and WHEREAS, fifty-six of the sixty-four nations of the world have agreed by treaty severally with each other to submit their differences to arbitration and, furthermore, thirty of these nations have absolutely proscribed war each with the other ; and WHEREAS, the established policy of the United States, as instanced notably in the Root and Bryan treaties, is peaceful settlement of disputes between our country and other nations, be it RESOLVED : That we welcome the correspondence and negotiations now proceeding between the Great Powers of the world--France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan and the United States--proposing a multilateral treaty proscribing war between themselves and engaging by solemn pledges to find peaceful methods of settling any dispute arising, and be it further RESOLVED : That we hereby pledge to this undertaking our earnest and active support and urge this and succeeding administrations of the United States persistently to prosecute these negotiations until such a treaty is ratified. May, 1928 27 The Presidential Primary NOMINATING the President of the United States is a complex performance. The presidential primary has not made naming the President either simple, direct, or easily understood. On the contrary it has probably increased the confusion in many voters' minds. The chief difficulty is that the presidential primary is only one process in our complicated nominating procedure. Until 1908, the national conventions were composed of delegates chosen by state conventions according to party rule and custom. Thus, the voter as a party member had in theory a voice in the choice of a candidate for President. The voter, the party member, was, however, removed by four sets of conventions from the final nomination. It was in consequence, to give the voter, as a party member, a more certain and direct opportunity to express his choice that the presidential primary was introduced. In 1908, under a new state law, Wisconsin sent all its delegated to the National Convention by direct vote and a Pennsylvania law had made a similar provision for the direct election of district delegates who were permitted to state on the primary ballot their choice for the presidential nomination. Before the conventions of 1916, twenty-three states had enacted some form of compulsory presidential primary law, and one has been passed since then. The law in Texas and Alabama has been declared unconstitutional ; the law in Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont, Montana and North Carolina has been repealed ; and seventeen state laws are in operation this year. In this history, there has emerged the answer to the question, what is the presidential primary? Most tersely stated, it is an election by party members of delegated to National Party conventions, or it is an expression by party members of a preference from among the presidential candidates presented, or it is both. As yet, the presidential primary has not been a controlling factor in a presidential nomination. In the last three presidential years the delegates instructed by a presidential vote, or directly elected, constituted a majority of the National Conventions. This year the delegates from the presidential primary states will number less than a majority of votes in the Democratic Convention and in the Republican Convention they will have a bare majority. The presidential primary was "an offspring of the direct primary." The state laws creating it were progressive or emergency measures from which great and immediate results were expected. It was their intent "to leave to the National Convention as little discretion in nominating the president as the Electoral College has long had in electing him." The intention has not been realized. The presidential primary has steadily lost ground. If it were held in all the states instead of about one-third of them, it might become more nearly what was hoped for it in 1912. Moreover, defects in the laws which have limited their effectiveness could be improved. Experience has shown that some arrangements of the ballot and some methods of controlling delegates are more effective than others. Uniformity of state laws, in particular as to the date of the presidential primaries, would make a nation-wide expression of opinion on a single issue more likely. It still remains to be seen whether perfecting the presidential primary is desirable or possible. Both depend upon what you and I and all eligible voters really want. Thoughtful observation of the events of the presidential primaries this year and of their results will help us to some conclusions. In coming to a conclusion the most important factors will not be, how much trouble the presidential primary causes, nor how much money is spent in it, nor what part it plays in the conventions, but how successfully it can attract you and me as voters and make it simple and easy for us to take part in the final nomination of the president.--BELLE SHERWIN. In the Congress A POSTSCRIPT to the last report of the League's measures in the Congress recorded the passage by the Senate of the Norris Resolution (S. J. Res. 6) on the subject of Muscle Shoals. It was a great victory for those who believed that the public interest was best safeguarded under the terms of that measure. In the House the Senate Joint Resolution was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. That committee has now reported it favorably but "with an amendment," and it stands on the Union Calendar of the House. The amendment is in effect a substitute and proposes government operation of the properties at Muscle Shoals under a somewhat different plan than the one proposed by Senator Norris. It is the first time that the House Committee has ever reported a measure providing government operation. In that respect it is a great advance. In general, however, the amendment embodies the point of view of those who contend that the resources should be applied directly to the production of nitrogen for fertilizer. With this point of view the League disagrees ; therefore to some features of the amendment proposed by the Committee we are opposed. Others will be acceptable to the friends of the Norris plan and it is the hope of that group that the essential features of the Norris proposal may be restored on the floor of the House and that this session of the Congress may see final action on the much debated question. H. R. 6685. The Senate Committee on the District of Columbia still has pending before it the District Child Labor bill which passed the House of Representatives in February. S. Res. 139. The Gillett Resolution is still before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, although it has once been the subject of debate on the Senate floor. --MARGUERITE OWEN. Mrs. Siegel W. Judd, of Grand Rapids, president of the Michigan League of Women Voters, and the youngest president of a state league [This two-page insert is entirely under the control of the National League of Women Voters. The League is not responsible for anything else printed in the Woman's Journal and the Woman's Journal is not responsible for what is published by the League in its insert.] 26 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL PEACE by PLEDGE By CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT THE world-around situation created by the treaty proposal of M. Briand, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, a year ago, has changed from week to week, now threatening to drift upon the reefs of final disaster, now promising hitherto undreamed of triumphs of peace. There can be no question but that the controversy has been centralized, objections reduced in number, and tolerance developed, while public and political opinion have steadily moved forward in the direction of support of the proposal. Meanwhile, the proposal itself has not remained stationary, but has expanded tremendously until it practically suggests treaties renouncing war among all the nations, and public opinion appears to have grown more widespread and enthusiastic with each new expansion. We are continually asked whether there is not a clash between the proposed multilateral treaty renouncing war and the League of Nations. Apparently this idea is current in the press and consequently is repeated among the people. La Nation Belge, as reported in our papers, asks editorially, "What good are new treaties if the League Covenant guarantees peace? And if peace is not guaranteed either by the Covenant or by the Locarno compacts, why would any new treaty guarantee any better?" This comment is a fair example of the attitude of the doubter. The answer to the first question is that the League of Nations makes no pretense to guarantee peace. It sets up a covenant "in order to achieve peace." The answer to the second question is that no treaty yet signed or proposed can be regarded as a guarantee of peace. The more pledges a nation makes, the stiffer the pledge, the freer from reservations, the bolder the terms, the more certainly does the treaty approach a guarantee. The present proposal is a bolder, franker, clearer agreement than any that have preceded it. Stephen Lauzanne, the famous French correspondent and editor, leads the French view in opposition. Says he, May 9, as reported in the press : "What have we seen in the past ten years except two peace systems different entirely and constantly clashing--here the "Build Friendships, Not Warships, for National Defense" Is the Slogan of the National Committee on the Cause and Cure of War in Its Campaign for a Multilateral Treaty to Outlaw War. The Chairman of the Committee Here Reports "Where We Stand" in Regard to the Proposal. l She Volunteers to Answer, Either by Letter or in the Magazine, Any Question Sent to Her. logical system, which is Franco-Slav, and there the idealist system, which is of Anglo- Saxon fabrication? "The French system is based on the experience we have had of human nature. Men have disputed since humanity existed. It is better to set up a system of security for protection against fools and robbers. "The Anglo-Saxon system takes no account of experiences of the past and supposes that humanity can be suddenly transformed by a sort of religious fervor and transported into an ideal region where goodness and justice reign supreme. "Each one pledges peace, and the pledged word shall be the supreme law. To violate peace would be so terrible that we must not even think about it. We will always love one another because we promised to. "It is a system tied to the clouds, where nothing is specified and everything is left to the chance that every one will be of good faith." In this somewhat bitter though brilliant comment the fact may be detected that the alleged clash is not between the new proposal and the League of Nations but exists rather between two systems within the League itself, two systems that clash in every nation and in every discussion. The first system is based upon the theory that peace must be "enforced." An international army and navy must be ready to put down the violator of any anti-war treaty who breaks the peace. This view has been most strongly advocated by France and her particular allies. Indeed at the Versailles Conference, where the Covenant was written, France contended stoutly for an international army to enforce peace and thus give security. A compromise was made and in Article XI it is provided that "Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the members of the League or not, is a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations." In other words, the League Covenant prefers not to outline in advance the method it will use when and if an unknown bridge appears in its path, but will decide how to get over it when it occurs. Thus far, all difficulties have been satisfactorily settled through "moral suasion" by the League, and not occasion has shown need for an international army. The Anglo-Saxons, having been leaders in the development of democratic ideals and the force of public opinion, have opposed the international army idea and have contended that compacts must be respected between nations, that the pledged word must be honorably kept and that the force of moral influence must be applied to any recalcitrant nation before armed force is used. These are two systems of theory ; each has its supporters, and through these differing viewpoints men and women look upon the Briand-Kellogg proposal and draw their respective conclusions. Meanwhile, the Kellogg proposals, if carried out, will bring the United States up to the standards of the League and go somewhat beyond them. The French Cabinet has accepted M. Briand's proposals. M. Briand made certain reservations, chiefly that "the treaty shall not bar wars of legitimate defence" and that "the treaty shall not invalidate existing agreements"--meaning possible obligations through the League of Nations to enforce peace against a violator of League treaties. On April 28 Secretary Kellogg, in a speech, accepted these reservations. Raymond L. Buell, in the Foreign Policy Association's Bulletin, explains the predicament France might otherwise have found herself in, as follows : "Suppose that State Y, which is at the same time a signatory of the anti-war treaty and a member of the League, attacks State X, which belongs to the League but which is not a party to the anti-war treaty. As far as the anti-war treaty is concerned, State Y is free to attack State X. But as a member of the League it has violated its obligations, and France as a League member is obliged to apply sanctions. Yet under the anti-war treaty, France is prevented from attacking State Y !" From this possible conflict Secretary (Continued on page 36) June, 1928 25 Taking Part in Government Interesting highlights in the speech of Miss Belle Sherwin, President of the National League of Women Voters, given at the League Convention in April. IT is fitting in this anniversary year of 1928, in Chicago where the League was founded one the eve of the Presidential campaign of 1920, to consider taking part in government as an end rather than a means, what it definitely requires of us, of citizens generally, of women today. I would not even hint that the educational experiment of the League is complete. Far from it. The technique of all adult education is only beginning to take shape. Even in our limited field, it is difficult to keep pace with the possibilities open to us--witness discussion groups and the radio. . . . Nor do I wish to imply impatience because the suffrage of women has not produced more immediate and striking results, seen either in numbers of votes cast or in a marked change in political habit. We in the League believe that change in both instances is practicable, but that it should come slowly, durably, through systematic and continuous effort in the gradual course of political development. Women can now point with pride to the increase in legislation for the protection of children and the establishment of their own legal status. I do not think this Presidential campaign year finds women surprisingly or disturbingly lacking in meeting political obligations. I do think it does put and should put conspicuously to the test the work of the League intended to help women meet those obligations--but it is not a final test. . . . It is difficult to agree with any party in all respects, but it is apparent that parties help to organize the political action of the people, so that it becomes definite in some respects. . . . The original interest in government, the ties of political association, loyalty to the government as the source of public well-being, all need to be very strong indeed in order to enable one to drive through a maze of personal problems, to reach some conclusions as guides to conduct. I believe that honest and patient thinking leads to an agreement with Mr. Elihu Root--that "the American who feels the responsibility of citizenship can do his duty better by entering the organization of one of the political parties. . . . The better educated, the more intelligent and active the citizen is, the greater reason is there to seek the increase of effectiveness which comes from association, combination, and organization. Staying outside a party organization because there are abuses in parties, or conflicts of loyalties, may mean keeping oneself unspotted from the world, but it is not the counsel of courage. Staying outside because one can get nowhere inside seems to be the counsel of impatience. I should like to think with Mr. Root that "there is never a time when a man of character and ability entering into the active work of a party cannot gain the influence and power to which ability entitles him, or cannot contribute materially to a change of control--provided he is willing to take the pains and give the time and effort necessary. . . . Of course, a new recruit cannot do it." It is time now to see more women of education, intelligence, ability, and character attempting to prove that. And the new recruit must begin by taking part in each process of party activity open to her in caucus or precinct. I wish to repeat that the League of Women Voters by no means prevents the activity of women in the parties, though that is sometimes said to be the case. On the contrary, the League urges today, as it began to do in 1920, that its members seek action through the political parties of their choice. And that urgent counsel does not contradict the conviction that a common meeting ground is needed by women, for the discussion --free from party bias or organization precedent--of "measures for which women see the need most clearly." In such a year as this the policy and counsel of the League may seem difficult to follow. Therefore I repeat what I have had occasion to say frequently this spring, that the extent to which officers who are publicly identified with the League should participate in partisan activities calls for careful consideration in each individual instance. As a general principle, the National Board advises "that League officers be as active in their respective political parties as it is possible to be without prejudicing or hampering their influence in the League. A League officer ought not to give the public any reasonable cause to doubt the unpartisan character of the League, composed of members of all parties." One must decide for oneself the vexed question of a conflict between loyalty to public interest and loyalty to party dicta. . . . Encouraging women to seek public office is an obligation today as it was not in 1920. We want more women in office, as we want more men, to give disinterested service. It is important now that some women should take part in government to the full extent of their capacity. As candidates, they will undoubtedly interest voters ; as elected officials, they will help give new values to votes. Because the League of Women Voters is at all times scrupulously careful to make its unpartisan position plain, it is often perplexing to know how to encourage women to seek office. But the nomination and endorsement of individual members of parties is not the only way to take. To study and to proclaim the opportunities for public service by women as office holders, to create understanding of women who seek and hold office, and when possible to set the fashion oneself may prove better ways. . . . Citizens should be workmen in government--in one degree or another. Members of the League of Women Voters should become master workmen in political education--of which participation in government is a part and an end. The new secretary of the National League-- Mrs. Henry Steffens, Jr., of Detroit [This two-page insert is entirely under the control of the National League of Women Voters. The League is not responsible for anything else printed in the Woman's Journal and the Woman's Journal is not responsible for what is published by the League in its insert.] 36 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL P is for PEDIFORME Easty to wear Does away with foot ills If you will take care Form-fitting shoes On lasts of good style Real comfort you'll know More reason to smile. E means the end Of each bunion and corn { Take our advice Try PEDIFORME } Regardless of the nature of your foot troubles. "PEDIFORME" Shoes will aid you to regain normalcy. Write for our FREE Style Book "A" that tells how to overcome foot ills in the natural way. THE PEDIFORME SHOE CO. 36 West 36th St., New York 322 Livingston St., Brooklyn 29 Washington Pl., East Orange, N. J. HOTEL Martha Washington 30 East 30th Street NEW YORK CITY A Resident Hotel for Women Special Weekly Rates $12.00 per Week and Up Very Large Rooms With Twin Beds $15.00 per week for one person $18.00 per week for two persons Daily Rates From $2.00 Up WARBURTON HOUSE 20th & Sansom Sts. Philadephia HOTEL EXCLUSIVELY FOR WOMEN Single Rooms, Week . . .$12 to $22 Double Rooms, Week . . .$20 to $30 Special Rates for Summer IRIS Fifteen beautiful varieties--all labeled. Also 1--50 cent Red Iris. Also 4--50 cent plants of my favorite of all irises--20 in all. About $7.50 worth. Parcel Post. Prepaid for only $1.50. A Million plants is the reason for these very, very cheap prices. Full instructions how to plant and grow iris--also list of 6 other unusual collections in every box. This is ideal time to plant iris. One exquisite Lavender Iris free for prompt orders. Otwell Iris Fields .. Carlinville, Illinois ber. Animal carcases, dumped separately from the garbage, are consumed in a fraction of the time ordinarily taken for cremation. A force of two men is adequate to handle the plant. The solid material comes directly from the storage bin to the feed hoppers and is discharged into the furnaces by a simple gear operated by one man. The ashes are loaded into the trucks from a chute and are used for land fill. Far from being an offense, a small plant of this type at Floral Park, Long Island, is in the center of a children's playground ; and a great one, with offices that look like hotel rooms and grounds that look like a park, is located on one of the main thoroughfares in the city of Montevideo, Uruguay. In considering needs and achievements in handling the garbage problem, no panacea may be advocated with wisdom. What is balm for one community is not always balm for another. Local factors may make all the difference between success and failure with a given scheme. Each community's problem is a case in itself, to be studied and dealt with accordingly. But the sensible citizen may well look beyond his own city limits and take note both of the backwardness and the progressiveness of others in his quest for ideas. Peace by Pledge (Continue from page 26) Kellogg has rescued France by agreeing to M. Briand's reservation that the previous obligations of France shall be respected. Despite M. Lauzanne's tart criticisms and that of some others, the French national elections have taken place and M. Briand's party has been retained in power. The German Government has wholeheartedly accepted the principle of these proposals. The British Government is apparently favorable. Sir Austen Chamberlain, in a speech before the House of Commons, has endorsed it. Lord Gray, Secretary of Foreign Affairs at the outbreak of the war, has urged the conclusion of the treaties. Early in May the British Government proposed a conference of jurists to consider terms of the treaty. Japan quickly supported this suggestion, and cautiously expresses sympathy with the whole proposal. Italy is cordial but evasive as to the fundamental suggestions. So the six Great Powers view the treaty situation at a moment which is fraught with marvelous possibilities of peace and good will for all the word but without guarantee of immediate conclusion. If those who formulate the treaty shape it to cooperate with the League of Nations and in no respect introduce a single question of conflict, a cause will have been found worthy of our united sacrifice and devotion. Maria Mitchell, Astronomer By RWTH DE FOREST LAMB A SMALL newsboy stopped short in the aisle of the train and stared. "Please, ma'am, are you Julia Ward Howe?" "No," replied the lady. The boy went away, only to return a few minutes later. "Please, ma'am, are you Elizabeth Stuart Phelps?" "No." "Are you Harriet Beecher Stowe?" "No." "Well, who are you, lady? You must be somebody!" Somebody the lady certainly was--a world-famous scientist, American's first woman astronomer, first Professor of Astronomy at the new Vassar Female College, and a delightful and invigorating personality. Maria Mitchell could not remember the time when a telescope and a terrestrial globe were not familiar objects. When she was only eleven years old she helped her father in an astronomical observation, noting the seconds on a chronometer while he watched the progress of a lunar eclipse. She was already Courtesy of Vassar College Maria Mitchell famous as a scientist when, in 1865, she went to Vassar--eighteen years before she had been awarded a gold medal by the King of Denmark for her discovery of a comet, and her later work was always well known in Europe. Though she might have preferred a quiet life of scientific speculation, Miss Mitchell appreciated that she was the only woman in the world who could give the new college what it sought from her, so she accepted the post, albeit with misgivings as to her own fitness. But whatever her personal feelings about it, her influence was so great that fifty years later, long after her death, the students still spoke of her with reverence and affection, as a living part of the college. A favorite saying of hers is still cherished by the girls : "Every formula which expresses a law of nature is a hymn of praise to God." Maria Mitchell took no part in the woman suffrage movement, but she be- When writing to the above advertisers, please mention the Woman's Journal June, 1928 35 grams, young students at the Ecole Central or old rag-pickers on the early morning streets, they have about them an air of competence and ability. One comes very quickly to feel that the paradoxes and the difficulties are safe in their hands. Garbage (Continued from page 12) filled with ashes and rubbish are unloaded at Riker's Island, in the East River, where land is being made of things the city has thrown away. But some of these and all of the garbage scows are taken to a spot at sea designated by the United States Supervisor of Harbor, and dumped. These dumping grounds have been pushed further and further out--they are now twelve miles from the coast in winter and twenty in summer--but some say they will have to be removed many times that far for the material to escape the pocket formed by the coast line. Officials have been wont to take lightly the charges against the street cleaning department of polluting the beaches. They claim that most of the garbage dumped at sea sinks within half an hour. Refuse picked up on the beaches they lay to the account of passing ships. But one day an irate beach resident came with a bundle of opened letter addressed to a New York firm, which he offered as proof that the contents of some Manhattan waste-paper basket had found their way via ocean waves to his summer cottage. A bottle test also proved the possibility of ocean-dumped garbage coming back to land. New York talks of and plans more incinerators, but the present rate of construction promises no immediate cessation of dumping at sea. The people, it is said, are largely to blame. New York's early, old-fashioned plant on Barren Island created such a nuisance that prejudice against garbage plants has prevailed ever since. Not knowing that incinerators of the most modern type create no nuisance or that the large plant at 139th Street and the Harlem River, in a crowded and growing neighborhood, draws no complaints, many sections for which other incinerators have been proposed have risen up in arms at the suggestion, and ward politicians have appeased them with injunctions. Leaving behind New York with its conflicts of opinion and it polluted beaches, let us go west where something of a golden age for garbage collection is claimed for an area of thirty-four square miles, with a population of half a million. The telephone bell at Milwaukee's garbage bureau has been a good deal less active of late than formerly. Complaints have been dropping astonishingly, each year's total being a fraction of those registered the year before. This turn in Milwaukee's troubles is credited to the trailer system of collection, followed by incineration. This system consists of the use, for alley and curb collection, of horse-drawn carts, which, when filled, are unhitched at some designated point, made up into trains of three or four and picked up by a tractor truck, which leaves empty trailers behind and hauls the loaded ones off. Collections are made in residential districts once a week in winter, twice in summer, and hotels and commercial houses are served every day. The cost of collection is put at $4.50 a ton and that of disposal at $2.95. Milwaukee's rubbish and ashes are collected separately and hauled to dumps to fill in lowlands and to reclaim land along the shore of Lake Michigan. But all the garbage goes to one large incinerating plant. Milwaukee countenances no dump-picking, since it is held to endanger health and to slow up the workmen, without producing valuable by-products. For the remainder of the fair picture of how an American city may get rid of garbage efficiently and decently, one does well to skip from Milwaukee to Charleston, West Virginia. Milwaukee incinerates in a plant that has never received complaints of odors or dust from the chimney as a result of incomplete combustion through faulty operation. Nevertheless, the garbage is dumped into an outside pit, is hoisted aloft by grab buckets and dropped on a floor, where men must push it through the holes into the furnaces. Charleston, on the other hand, boasts a plant, though small in its seventy-ton capacity, that yields neither odor nor smoke and is so attractive that the town considers it a show spot. Its grounds, once a hideous dump, have been beautified and inside it is spotless and tidy. "The Ladies" Did It "The ladies" were largely instrumental in bringing this plant to Charleston, so the engineer who installed it was told. Most of it is built below the level of the road. The visitor enters by a gently inclined ramp with the truck, which discharges its load into a hatch in the roadway inside the building. Rubbish and garbage together are dropped down an inclined plane into a bin, the bottom of which is the top of a hot-air chamber, which is heated by radiation from the combustion chamber of the furnace. The vapors and fumes produced by the warming refuse in the bin are drawn into the furnace so forcibly by blast-blowers that no odors escape. Here they produce heat so intense that solid material, even metals, are soon reduced to ashes. Working only two eight-hour shifts six days a week, the plant can produce a temperature of 1700 to 1900 degrees in the combustion cham- nina really does DON'T you wish there were a truth-test for words? So that the exaggerations would turn red--and only the facts would come out white and shining? . . . If so, this little column would reach right out and convince you! Nina is a 3-purpose cream--night, day and bleach. Nina does begin to smooth, clear and whiten your skin the very first time you use it. Nina will take care of practically every complexion problem-- blemishes, sallowness, lines, circles under the eyes, sagging muscles--to say nothing of petty annoyances like uneven make-up and shiny nose. . . . But you'll never know all this until you try Nina yourself ! NINA TONIGHT--(2 minutes) Shake the jar, run your finger round the stopper-top and over your face. Fragrant as fresh rose-geranium--not a hint of that greasy, messing feeling . . . pleasant ! Massage it gently, with a special fingertipful under your eyes. . . . In a week--blemishes, sallowness will have disappeared. In a month--lines are fading, muscles tightening. . . . And what does that do to the years? NINA TOMORROW--(2 minutes) In the morning--Nina again, massaged in and the surplus gently patted off with complexion tissue. . . . What a soft, velvety foundation for make-up ! Your rouge effaces itself discreetly, in the modern manner. Your powder adheres beautifully-- no shiny nose. . . . And the night-time beauty work of Nina goes on all day, while you work or play ! NOW for Nina--at your favorite shop--or the coupon. nina geranium cream Ask Nina! Miss Nina Nestor will be glad to advise you without obligation, upon questions pertaining to the improvement of the complexion and modern methods of face grooming. Write her stating your natural coloring and the condition of your skin. She will suggest individual treatment and advise regarding daytime and evening make-up. CLIP AND MAIL PRODUITS NINA, Inc. J 580 Fifth Avenue, New York Please send me postpaid one jar Nina Geranium Cream. I enclose $3.50. Name Address City State When writing to Produits Nina, Inc., please mention the Woman's Journal author 1930 16 THE WOMAN'S JOURNAL THE STORY OF THE WORLD COURT If You Are Hazy on the Relation of the United States to the World Court, Read This Clear Summary By CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT AN intelligent woman asked another : "Do you know what is the prevailing trait of the American people ?" and answering her own query, continued, "It is the loss of memory." Deny this unpatriotic charge though we may, it must be admitted that we hear, see and read about so heterogeneous a multiplicity of things in this unquiet age that we perforce forget most of them. Before this year is out there probably will be a lively campaign on both sides of an old controversy freshly revived--the entrance of the United States into the World Court. It may be well to review the background of facts by way of preparation for it and to do it in a form convenient for reference. The very dry and dusty facts, which should now be recalled, are as follows : Grotius, a Dutch historian, about the time the Pilgrims were landing at Plymouth, proposed a step leading in the direction of an International Court, and the agitation for such an institution has been steadily progressing and maturing during the three hundred years that have elapsed since that day. The first official proposal to establish such a Court was made by Andrew D. White representing the United States at the first Hague Tribunal in 1899. The instruction of the United States (McKinley, president) declared that the establishment of an international Court would represent "the desires and aspirations of this nation." The Permanent Court of Arbitration resulted, useful but timid and inadequate. In 1907 Joseph Choate, leader of the American delegation at the Second Hague Conference, presented an urgent plea to expand the Hague Court into a more efficient Court with fixed judges and rules and duly established by the nations. The proposal might have led to success had not the delegates been unable to agree upon the method of electing judges. The idea was not forgotten and unofficial discussion continued the world around during the years preceding the The Peace Palace at The Hague, built by Andrew Carnegie, where the World Court holds its sessions great war. Probably nowhere was the subject so universally approved as in the United States. The Paris Peace Conference appeared to recognize the proposal as a piece of unfinished business and laid the responsibility of completing it quite definitely upon the League of Nations which it had founded. In 1920 a plan for the Court was drafted by an Advisory Committee of Jurists called by the League, which was first submitted to the Council of the League and then ratified by member nations of which at this time there are fifty-two. The obstacle which had hindered the establishment of the Court in 1907 was removed by a proposal of Elihu Root, who was a member of the Advisory Committee. (The judges are nominated by the Permanent Court of Arbitration and elected by the Council and Assembly of the League.) The Court held its first session in August, 1922. At the suggestion of Secretary of State Hughes, President Harding, February 24, 1923, addressed a letter to the Senate pointing out that the United States might join the World Court even though it was not a member of the League and appended four conditions which had been recommended by Secretary Hughes, the aim being to make clear that membership in the Court would not involve the United States with the League. These conditions became known as the Harding-Hughes reservations. They were (abridged) : 1. The adhesion to the Court shall not involve any relation with the League. 2. The United States shall have an equal voice with other nations in the election of judges. 3. The United States shall pay its share of the expenses of the Court. 4. There shall be no amendment of the statute of the Court without the consent of the United States. The proposal was received with great enthusiasm by a large part of our population and, as the Senate took no action it soon became the object of a nation-wide campaign which secured the endorsement of the most important organizations of men and women, newspapers and magazines, led by the National Bar Association. Quantities of informing literature was distributed, mass meetings were held and a most impressive number of very distinguished citizens, including many judges, clergymen, politicians, writers, editors and business men, spoke and wrote in its behalf. ON December 6, 1923, Calvin Coolidge, having succeeded to the presidency, commended President Harding's proposal to the favorable consideration of the Senate. The question was widely discussed in the presidential campaign of 1924, and both dominant parties endorsed it, but it was not until March, 1925, two years after its receipt, that the Senate took action upon President Harding's recommendation. Several resolutions differing slightly in character were introduced, and after prolonged debate covering nine months, on January 27, 1926, the Senate adopted a resolution by a vote of 76 to 17 advising and consenting to the adherence of the United States to the Court with, however, five reservations attached, as August, 1929 17 follows (abridged) : 1. Adherence to the Court shall involve no legal relation to the League. 2. The United States shall assist in electing the judges. 3. The United States will pay its share of the expenses of the Court. 4. The statute of the Court shall not be amended without the consent of the United States, and the United States may at any time withdraw its adherence to the Court. (These were the Harding-Hughes reservations with one exception --the right to withdraw from the Court as stated in the 4th was new). 5. The Court shall entertain no request for an advisory opinion touching any dispute or question in which the United States has or claims an interest. THE fifth reservation was received at home and abroad with consternation since no statesman was wise enough to say how it should be determined when the United States had or claimed an interest. A further handicap to the next steps of procedure was found in the condition that the acceptance should be indicated by an exchange of notes. Fifty-two letters were therefore dispatched to as many nations and were received with embarrassment, for the statesmen of each state saw that there might be fifty-two varieties of replies. A Conference of Signatory Nations was therefore called by the League to talk it over. Secretary Kellogg declined to send a delegate, although invited to do so, in order that there might be an interpretation of the reservations. The Conference, after discussion unanimously accepted the first four reservations and proposed further consid- ference of States signatory to the Court Statute will meet at Geneva, September 8th. This conference has authority to amend the protocol. When action is complete, the Protocol of Accession will come to the State Department as a com- This is the second article in the Department of International Affairs, which aims to clarify some important subject each month. In conducting it the editors have the cooperation of Josephine Schain, Corresponding Secretary of the Conference on the Cause and Cure of War, and Raymond T. Rich, General Secretary of the World Peace Foundation eration of the fifth. This official communication was received by the Secretary of State in December, 1926, and remained there unacknowledged until February 18, 1929. Meanwhile continuous appeals were made by organizations, individuals and the press to President Coolidge to reopen negotiations. No explanation of the failure to do this was ever made, but when in the winter of 1928 the President invited certain Senators and Representatives to breakfast and announced that he wished to take up the question of the Court, it was apparently then discovered, if not before, that there was no open door through which to pass to the desired negotiations.. FORTUNATELY, just at this time Mr. Root was again summoned to a conference of jurists, this time to study the statute of the World Court with the aim of proposing amendments if required. Mr. Kellogg facilitated action by addressing a reply on February 19,1929, to the letter of 1926 asking further discussion. These nations promptly referred the entire subject to the Commission of Jurists. The Conference drafted a new "Protocol of Accession" which embodies the suggestions of Mr. Root and which reconciles the apparently conflicting ideas of the United States and of the states already supporting the Court. It was unanimously adopted by the Jurists, and on June 11 at Madrid the Council of the League of Nations decided to transmit this "Protocol of Accession" to the Assembly in order that the Court members may there express their opinion. The report of the Jurists is now in the Department of State, but the Conpleted answer to the letter that Mr. Kellogg on February 19, 1929, addressed to all the members of the Court. The protocol will thereupon be presented to the new Congress in December, and it is reasonable to hope that speedy acceptance will follow. The protocol, here called the Root formula, practically accepts all the Senate reservations, but it makes provision that all signatories be included in any especial liberty claimed by the United States. All signatories, for example, may withdraw from the Court. The protocol gives so generous an acceptance of the United States reservation and adjusts so wisely the fifth reservation which created a muddle of misunderstanding that it is difficult to think the Senate will not promptly ratify it as all other member nations must. The opening public session of the Permanent Court of Inter national Justice, May 15, at The Hague, with Charles Evans Hughes, new American representative speaking J 62 author WOMAN JOURNAL 7 The United States made the first definite proposal to establish a World Court. The last seven presidents and both dominant political parties have endorsed the idea. The Court has become a reality with a membership of fifty-two nations. All the states in the world acknowledged as nations except eleven are now members of the Court. The exceptions are Argentina, Honduras, Woman's Journal--Makeup--Quinn Nicaragua, and Peru, which are members of the League, and Afghanistan, Ecuador, Egypt, Mexico, the Soviet Republics, Turkey and the United States, which are not members of the League. The Court meets at the Hague in the beautiful Peace Palace built by an American, Andrew Carnegie ; its statute was largely framed by an American, Elihu Root, and the distinguished Charles E. Hughes sits among its judges. Yet there are Senators who say they will never, never vote to enter that Court. Therefore the people must speak, and before speaking they must be informed. Read the new Protocol, send for it to The Cause and Cure of Ware, Room 1015, Grand Central Terminal Bldg., New York, or The American Foundation, 565 Fifth Avenue, New York or The League of Women Voters, Room 1015, Grand Central Terminal Bldg., New York. Transcribed and reviewed by volunteers participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.