« 上一頁繼續 »
however, can only be included in such an understanding when it is recognized in that country that the attempts hitherto made in the Cisleithan half of the monarchy to introduce a liberal system are based on a mistaken policy, as are also the national experiments in a Polish direction.
The Czar is now aligned with republican l'rance and democratic England, and has at least pledged his support to " a new national experiment in a Polish direction." Austria has satisfactorily purged herself, so far as Germany is concerned, of her mistaken sympathy for liberalism. Though the players have shifted sides, the conflict is the same.
Many of our German-American citizens cannot understand why Americans sympathize with the Allies in a war between the most progressive and the most reactionary Empire on the European Continent. In this brief statement we tell them why.
Big Austria attacked little Servia. Without demanding an impartial investigation of Austria's charges against Servia, Germany allied herself with Austria. Germany's first mistake.
Sir Edward Grey made earnest efforts to secure the co-operation of Germany in an endeavor to obtain for Austria and Servia justice without war. Germany refused. Germany's second mistake.
Germany, England, and France had guaranteed, by sacred treaty, the neutrality of Belgium. Germany, in her plan of campaign, disregarded her pledge and asked Great Britain to disregard her pledge also. Germany's third mistake.
Americans do not believe in condemning an accused without giving him an impartial hearing. They do not believe in war without exhausting every endeavor to secure justice by peaceful measures. They do not believe in regarding a solemn treaty as a scrap of paper which may be discarded whenever it interferes with the interests of either of the parties to the treaty. If a nation can break its solemn obligations without penalty, there is an end to any international good relations.
The agitation for international arbitration —the substitution of the appeal to reason for the appeal to force—has led thousands of Americans to hope that henceforth treaties would require no other enforcement than the
public sense of national honor. Germany's disregard of her treaty obligations by her invasion of Belgium has disappointed this hope-.
Mark Twain, who made fashions for himself, wore white flannel during the later years of his life, and, like every other man or woman who departs from the modes of the hour, was accused of self-advertising. There was method in his madness, however, as there often is in the seeming insanity of original people. Dark clothing, he explained, was depressing to him after passing his seventieth year, while lighter colors cheered him; he could not compel others to wear white, but he could wear it himself, and accordingly he wore it.
There is reason and also good sense in the conventions about dress that rest on good taste and a nice sense of propriety, which some "come-outers " discard, but which are a protection to privacy, to feeling, or to instinct.
The only reason for the uniformity of most of the clothes we wear, however, is the stimulation of business. We wear garments devised, not by artists, but by expert promoters of trade, and the fashions change every six months simply because the exigencies of business demand the discarding of the old in order that something new may be in demand. When one thinks of it, the general submission of society to the dictates of a group of irresponsible fashion-makers is one of the extraordinary facts about the Western peoples of to-day. Our ancestors had the idea that dress ought to be becoming, and that what was appropriate in one decade was appropriate in another; we have the idea that dress ought to be varied from year to year and that it ought to be standardized. The artist is brought in when it is a question of making a woman beautiful for a particular purpose or occasion: the rest of the time the tailor rules her with a rod of iron. An unfeeling man recently said that his heart would never be moved by the appeals of the "slaves " for freedom so long as they voluntarily wear skirts in which they cannot walk with comfort or run under any circumstances.
The obstacle in the way of individuality and freedom in dress is the publicity which any departure from the fashion of the moment entails on the innovator. The man who wears a coat of a past design, or a woman who devises a garment that follows the lines of the figure instead of the lines of the fashion-plate, is likely to be photographed by the newspapers and "written up" for those who think that gossip is news. And there are still people in the world who shrink from association in the public prints with murderers, "crooks," and the venders of quack remedies!
After many years of abstention from wearing collars, Jean Paul Richter posted a note on the official bulletin-board in Weimar announcing that, as he intended to oppose the world on essential matters, he would save his strength by conforming in non-essentials and henceforth wear a collar! The wearing of collars is in most cases a matter of good taste, and even when the question uf taste is not involved and the collar is merely a convention, the people who dare omit it are few, and ought to be few; for the collar or its equivalent is a sign of civilization. The individuality which expresses itself in eccentricity of dress is not an adventure for freedom; it is either abnormal or it is a bid for notoriery. It is not a defiance of convention, but of good taste. Shabby clothes are sometimes cheap bids for popularity, and an evening coat is often more democratic than a negligee shirt.
There is plenty of sham democracy in the world, and hypocrisy in dress is one of its most popular forms. The man who wears working clothes as a means of winning the vote of every class of workers is a hypocrite of a very mean kind. The candidate for Governor in a State election who went from a dinner at a club to a meeting of workingmen and took off his evening coat and spoke
in his ■' shirt sleeves " insulted his audience and lost the election. An evening coat is, in certain places and at certain times, as much a working dress as the dress of a man who plows or lays railway ties or carries a hod. A well-known public man who is noted for his skill in " keeping his ear to the ground" was traveling toward his home in clothes of a strictly orthodox fashion; as he neared his "district " he excused himself, retired to his stateroom, and presently reappeared in a negligee shirt, a loose coat minus a waistcoat, and a slouch hat. He had dressed for his part as a "man of the people." It is said in Italy that Radical deputies are often observed leaving Rome in first-class carriages; but when the train makes its last stop before reaching the town where the deputy is to be met by a delegation and welcomed as a defender of popular rights, he changes to a third-class carriage and becomes one of the people. An eloquent politician who is a noted "friend of the people" reproached a little group of men who had bravely announced their opposition to the platform of a popular candidate. He declared that they had needlessly jeopardized their popularity because the man could not be elected; and he laid down this fundamental principle for their future guidance: "Always give the people what they want if you are sure they can't get it." These men are sure in the end to be discovered and sent to the rear.
In dress,, as in ways of living, honesty and sincerity are essential to good taste, and appropriateness for the occasion and a due regard for what is becoming and attractive are the evidences of self-respect and respect for others.
COMMERCE AND FINANCE
A WEEKLY ARTICLE BY THEODORE H. PRICE
A GREAT FINANCIAL EMERGENCY: HOW IT HAS BEEN MET
I HAVE been in. Washington for four days in attendance upon a Conference called by the Secretary of the Treasury to consider ways and means of meeting the problem presented by interruption to the export of cotton, tobacco, naval stores, and the various agricultural products other than foodstuffs, through the sale of which under normal conditions our annual indebtedness
abroad is paid. For the past four years the average annual balance of trade in favor of the United States has been about S550.000.000. During the same period the average annual value of the cotton and tobacco exports has been about $600,000,000. For the same time our net exports of gold and silver have averaged only $25,000,000 annually. These figures make it clear that it is in cotton and tobacco that we pay O.t debts to Europe, and that any deprecaa •-. r: the vaiue of these two great C->rr.rD.«dnjcs means a corresponding impairment of o_r debt-paying power, the impoverishmer: of a large portion of our agricultural pop^rr n. and widespread loss to the Xarion.
Just how the emergency has been faced and met I shall endeavor to exp.air. m detz^ in a subsequent article. It is surnoen: for the present to say that it has been met, and met without any departure from what is considered conservative finance, and without any concession to the semi-Socialistic demand that the Government should follow the disastrous methods adopted by Brazil in "valorizing " coffee, and interpose the Xational credit to sustain the price of our more important agricultural products. Only those who have been in Washington upon such occasions as this can appreciate the relendess importunity with which the Government is besought to extend its paternalism to protect people against their own mistakes or against misfortune.
That these demands have been resisted is greatly to the credit of Congress and the Administration, and particularly to the credit of Secretary McAdoo, upon whose department most of these wild proposals insistently converge.
One cannot but be impressed with the public spirit of the Government officials in Washington, who are now at their desks night and day, Sundays and holidays, patiently listening to the impossible suggestions of people from all over the country, who come here obsessed with the idea that in the present emergency it is the duty of the Government to assume or avert the loss and interruption of business which must inevitably fall upon nearly every one in business in a Kuro|K'an war that is wasting the world"s wealth at the rate of $100,000,000 a day.
If the conference that has been in progress here for three days had been otherwise result
iess. ii would have been worth while for the srrapatiiy it has established between the business men of the country and the Administration, and for the words of financial soberness and sanity which Secretary McAdoo has spoken.
In reply to the repeatedly urgent request that the Government should in some way so rr.crease the issue of currency that unlimited borrowing would be possible Mr. McAdoo said:
•• There is enough currency authorized by law to-day to wreck the United States of America.- and the danger in this situation is that by iil-eonsidered views and ill-considered actions we may put out so much inflationary paper money that we will ruin the country. You gentlemen must remember that this currency is not Government money. The Government has not got money that it is going to hand out to anybody. The only money in the Treasury of the United States to-day is the gold fund, the surplus over and above its liabilities, amounting to aboul $130,000,000. and that is none too much to enable this Government to carry on its busi ness. and to take such reasonable measure oi protection for the general interests of the country as the use of any surplus part of thai fund may enable it to do."
The effect of these words upon the hua dred and fifty men present at the Conference was to reinvigorate their self-confidence, re awaken their courage, and send them home with the optimism that is always born ol self-dependence.
A committee of the Conference appointed by Secretary McAdoo has submitted a reporl making certain recommendations that a« most interesting. Meanwhile the hysteri; that has led to mistaken reliance upon th< hope of Government relief has passed and people have gone home with renewec confidence in themselves, the Nation, am the sane beneficence of our Government institutions.
Giuseppe Melchiore Sarto was born June 2, 1835, and was therefore in his eightieth year at the time of his death. was ordained in 1858 j became Bishop of Mantua in 1884; was created Cardinal in 189i; and was elected Pope 1901 His simplicity and straightforwardness of character caused him to be universally respected even by political and ecclesiastical opponents. For an account of his career see The Outlook for August 29