whether it would be permissible for people to have and keep intoxicating liquors in their homes. If it were made illegal for any one to possess liquor in his private dwelling, it would be almost, if not quite, impossible to make such a provision effective without instituting a system of search into private houses that would create resentment as an invasion of the liberty of the citizen. On the other hand, to let it remain lawful for a person to keep liquor in his home would be to allow a great advantage to people with sufficient money to enable them to lay in a stock of liquor for years to come. It is said by Mr. Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, that a great deal of unrest among wage-earners has been caused by the fact that they are not permitted to buy their beer from day to day, while wealthy men with well-stocked cellars can have their wines and whiskies. The House of Representatives has chosen the second horn of this dilemma and has made it not unlawful to possess liquor in a private dwelling occupied by the owner, provided the liquor is used for consumption by himself or his family or bona-fide guests.

The other obstacle concerned the legal method of enforcing the law. If violations of the law were left to trial by juries, it is feared that the observance of the law would be far from uniform. In certain places, it is thought, public opinion for the enforcement of prohibition would not be vigorous enough and general enough to make it possible to get jurymen who would convict violators. So the bill has been drawn in such a way as to take the enforcement of the law out of the hands of juries entirely. Any place where intoxicating liquor is made or sold in violation of the law is declared to be a nuisance, and anybody maintaining it is to be regarded as guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine. The United States District Attorney or any other officer designated by the United States AttorneyGeneral may institute a suit of injunetion to restrain the defendant from conducting or permitting the continuance of such nuisance. Then the person selling the liquor can be proceeded against for violating the injunction. In this proceeding the judge himself may summarily try and punish the defendant for contempt of court, with a penalty of fine up to $1,000, or imprisonment up to twelve months, or by both fine and imprisonment. The objection to this is that it deprives the accused of trial by jury, and trial by jury has been the recognized foundation-stone of British and American jurisprudence. The method adopted is open to the same objection that has been directed against the use of injunction proceedings in labor disputes.

ate, these two features of it should be subjected to special scrutiny.

THE SHIPPING STRIKE
SETTLED

The agreement reached between the forty thousand seamen who have been on strike in American ports and the shipowners was so reasonable and so amicably arranged in the end that it seems an immense pity that a compromise should not have been reached before the strike instead of after. Some five hundred vessels were held up for about two weeks in port, international trade was injured and hindered just when every effort should have been used to carry it on vigorously, and the public both here and abroad were unnecessarily inconvenienced. Some time a system of adjusting such differences without rushing into industrial war will be perfected.

There were three points at issue: the men asked for higher wages, shorter hours, and the recognition of their branch of the International Seamen's Union. The ship-owners were willing to advance wages, so that the first demand was merely a question of bargaining and adjustment; they were willing also to shorten the hours, although there was a practical difficulty in arranging the watches so as to reduce every sailor's work to the eight hours to which the men insisted that their work be limitedand in the end this matter too was adjusted; they were willing (or came to be willing) to recognize the union also, but not to agree that only union men should be employed-here once more a compromise was reached by an understanding that union men and Americans shall be preferred when they are available. The "closed shop" on board ship was certainly a novel issue. Unions among seamen have probably come to stay; in Great Britain, certainly, they were a powerful influence in the war and patriotic influences as well.

What is true of this seamen's strike is true of the recent British coal strike, which for a time threatened industrial injury on a vast scale. Patient study of the situation on the part of the Government and sensible concession to the miners had their effect, and the immediate danger appears to be over.

The labor question is always a business question, and compromise is the soul of business. Less heat and more business sense on both sides is the way out in most labor troubles.

THE STRIKE IN THE AIR

of the Postal Air Service and was caused by the discharge of two postal fliers who refused to take up their planes in weather which they believed was unsuitable for flying.

The original attitude of the Post Office Department towards its flying employees was expressed in a telegram from Second Assistant Postmaster-General Praeger in regard to the reinstatement of two pilots discharged for insubordination. Mr. Praeger telegraphed: "Orders regarding

Pilots Smith and Lee have not been revoked. They came into the service as every other pilot, with the knowledge that they must comply with the Department order to fly with the mail, and where flying conditions are such that they cannot operate have the option to resign. If they refuse to carry out the orders of the Department and fail to tender their resignations, removal from service must be made. Every pilot is expected to carry out his duty in accordance with his oath and sense of loyalty to the service and to aviation in general."

Again, in a statement made to a correspondent of the New York “Times," Mr. Praeger said: "There's a specific agreement between pilots and the Post Office Department, when they enter the service, that they must fly when the mail is ready or resign and allow other men to fly. This is clearly understood. All pilots came into the service with this absolute knowledge and understanding. The mail must fly on schedule. If the men do not feel like flying, they are dropped."

It seems that the pilots were absolutely justified in demanding that the decision as to whether or not pilots shall leave the ground shall be placed in the hands of men who are themselves fliers. Not even railway trains or steamships have yet reached the point of develop ment where they can proceed with utter disregard of the elements. To make such a demand of air pilots at this stage of the art of flying exhibited a Prussian disregard for human life.

We are glad to record the fact that the Post Office Department has receded from the untenable position which it at first assumed, and that the strike has now been definitely settled on the basis of the fol lowing agreement:

In inclement weather it is left to the judgment of the manager or superintendent of his division whether or not the weather is suitable for flying and if it is safe for the pilots to take the air. It is felt that the judgment of the manager of the division will be sound; but if the pilots still refuse the manager will himself take a plane and go aloft, thus demonstrating to the pilots that the weather is safe.

"STABILITY" IN MEXICO

According to Mexico's Ambassador to the United States, "Mexico has a

stable Government and foreigners are accorded every protection." Mr. Bonillas admits that there are a few bandits at large, but thinks that is the natural aftermath of a civil war. But our Ambassador to Mexico lately told a committee of Congress that fifty Americans had been murdered in Mexico in the last two years, and that no one had been punished by the Mexican Governmentsurely strong proof that Carranza's rule, if not "unstable," is wretchedly inert. But it is unstable; no other word describes an administration which lives from day to day in danger from revolution on a large scale, as shown by the recent attack on Juarez.

Ambassador Fletcher, who certainly was not inclined to advise drastic measures toward Carranza, would not affirm that the United States was getting satisfactory redress for injury and damage to its citizens. All other evidence is positive that we are not getting such redress. There have been since the fall of Diaz, Mr. Fletcher said, two hundred and fifteen Americans slain in Mexico; the National Association for Protection of American Rights in Mexico (the American Government ought to be such an association) puts the number at three hundred and ninety-six. American troops have crossed the border many times to drive marauders away. It is probably true, as our Administration admits, that the bandits get arms through nonenforcement of the embargo that still exists. That seems to be evidence of instability on both sides of the border.

The situation is so bad that the other

day Representative Hudspeth, of Texas, in the House, urged withdrawal of recognition of the Carranza Government and military occupation of Mexico by American forces until a stable Government has been established. At all events, it is increasingly evident that this country should take stock of its Mexican policy, see how much of the old "watchful waiting" assets (or liabilities) are left, and what profitable dealing with the question may be adopted for the future-profitable, that is, for the honor of this country and the safeguarding of its citizens and their rights.

TRAVELING SALESMEN
AND THE BALLOT

There are about six hundred thou sand commercial travelers in this country. Recently they have effected a National organization in order to take up in a large way questions that concern them as citizens and in their business relations. One such matter is that of voting. It is said that some of them have not voted for twenty years; certainly every year many thousands of their votes are not cast be

cause business compels them to be far away from their residences on election day. It is easy to say that patriotism day. It is easy to say that patriotism should lead them to insist on plans that would bring each man home to vote, but business men know it is impracticable. As it is, says the "Traveler's Forum," the organ of the organization, thousands of dollars are expended by the travelers in returning to register and again to vote. But when the distance is great the cost, as well as the loss of time and disarrangement of route plans, makes it inevitable that neither the traveler nor his firm will make the sacrifice.

What is the remedy? An Absentee Voting Bill has been passed by the New York State Legislature which allows the voter to mail home his properly authenticated ballot from a distance, to be cast in his home town by an authorized representative, a method similar to that adopted in allowing drafted men to register from in allowing drafted men to register from a distance. An amendment to the State Constitution is needed to carry out the plan, and such an amendment will be put before the people next November. Other States may follow; but, as an enormous number of the commercial travelers live in New York, a large measure of relief will be afforded by that State's action.

The plan, if properly safeguarded, seems to us practical and just. The men affected are intelligent and valuable citi zens, and they should be encouraged in their interest in public affairs, not deterred from participation in political action. They ask to be admitted to what they call "full citizenship" in this way.

It is interesting, apart from the ballot, to see how organization is bringing out among these men discussion on matters of common business interest. They are already talking in their "Forum" about discriminating taxes and legislation, tips, privileges, and other rights or injustices. Evidently their organization is going to grow and to be an active influence in business and in civil life.

COMMUNITY VISITING

An experiment in community visiting has recently been made by Mr. B. R. Hieronymus, community adviser of the University of Illinois. The cities were Bloomington, Decatur, Springfield, and Peoria, typical Illinois towns, about two hours apart. In a rich agricultural country, they are alike in climate; in population they are 35,000, 45,000, 60,000, and 100,000-near enough in size to make comparisons valuable; they are alike also in character of population, for no one of them is primarily a factory town.

The ten visitors from each place represented city commissions, chambers of commerce, Optimists' and Rotary Clubs, social workers, and various organizations.

For four days they traveled together on the interurban electric roads, reaching each city at ten in the morning.

One city showed co-operating agencies, the next community gardens, the third public health, and the last recreation. But unconsciously each town showed more than was listed on the programme. The close interlocking of the associated charities and the county dispensary, of the tuberculosis association and visiting nurse service, with Springfield's public health work surprised the co-operating group from Bloomington. Peoria, with its splendid endowed recreation center, found golf courses in her neighbor's parks. The boys of Decatur, organized to clean up the town and rewarded with a trip to the State University, showed co-operation and health and recreation all in one. Each town had, too, certain individuals who were forced into the limelight-the woman responsible for the new county hospital, the city commissioner who manages a neighborhood garden four blocks square, the woman who started infant welfare stations, and so on.

THE COMMUNITY SPIRIT

Typical of the new spirit aroused by this week of visiting is the comment of an Optimists' Club representative who was not interested in community activities; he frankly said that he went because he had to, and ended by taking his wife for the last two days. "I always thought that social service and community uplift were highbrow things away over my head. Why, these are things any club could do

ours at home. Success seems

to depend on one or two individuals who see the need and see the vision, and then get to work and do it. Did you notice. that every one of these towns has schoolhouses with more attractive grounds than ours? Why don't we have landscapegardened schoolyards?”

One of the results of this experiment was the realization of what their own town was doing, which came to some of these men and women, who confessed their surprise at the showing made. And each group gradually lost the bragging attitude with which its ten members started. The we're-the finest-town-in-Illinois talk of Tuesday was entirely absent by Friday night. Cocksure of themselves, boasting of their achievements, they ended in hearty admiration of their neighbors; they asked how to start a crippled children's clinic, whether the city could spend money to plow vacant lots for gardens, and what would the State Board of Health advise them to do.

Each representative reports back to his organization, so the story of this community visiting will go to fifty or a hundred members of each of ten groups in four

Copyright, 1919, New York Tribune, Inc.

towns, and to near-by villages as well, for each hostess city invited its immediate neighbors for the day. The results of this experiment may stretch over years, but the tangible result that shows now is sufficient to warrant carrying out this plan in other places.

MR. TAFT, MR. HUGHES,

AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

FRO

ROM correspondence recently pub lished, it is apparent that Mr. Taft and Mr. Hughes are seeking in common a basis upon which the Republican members of the United States Senate can vote for a prompt ratification of the Peace Treaty and the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Mr. Taft's suggestions were made in letters to Mr. Will Hays, Chairman of the Republican National Committee-letters which were not intended for publication, but found their way into print from duplicate copies given to the press in a manner not yet explained.

Mr. Hughes's proposals were made in reply to a letter from Senator Hale (Republican), of Maine. Saying that "rather than take the Covenant as it now stands I am very certain that considerably more than one-third of the Senate would refuse to ratify the Treaty altogether," and adding that "as far as I am personally concerned I do not want to see this happen, and I do want to see some plan devised whereby the United States may safely enter the League of Nations," Senator Hale asked Mr. Hughes whether reservations would not accomplish this object, and, if so, what the reservations should be. Mr. Hughes replied with a plan which we quote in full later in this article.

The importance of the public stand thus taken by Mr. Taft and Mr. Hughes is very great. They are both Republican statesmen of the first rank; they are both political administrators, Mr. Taft having been President of the United States and Mr. Hughes Governor of the State of New York; and they are both constitutional lawyers of eminence and experience, Mr. Taft having been a United States Circuit Judge and Mr. Hughes a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

and believes that any defects in the structure of the League can be remedied by amendment after the plan is put into operation, but suggests certain reservations in the hope that they "may satisfy the genuine objections of the Republican friends of the League." Mr. Taft's proposed reservations would (1) allow the United States to withdraw uncondition

ally at the end of ten years; (2) make it impossible for self-governing colonies or dominions to be represented on the Council of the League at the same time with the mother country; (3) leave each nation free to decide declarations of war in accordance with its own constitutional procedure; (4) state that subjects like immigration and the tariff are domestic questions not to be controlled by the League; and (5) reserve the Monroe Doctrine to be administered by the United States.

Mr. Hughes defines the following as the point of view from which the question of ratification is to be approached:

There is plain need for a League of Nations, in order to provide for the adequate development of international law, for creating and maintaining organs of international justice and the machinery of conciliation and conference, and for giving effect to measures of international co-operation which from time to time may be agreed upon. There is also the immediate exigency to be considered. It is manifest that every reasonable effort should be made to establish peace as promptly as possible and to bring about a condition in which Europe can resume its normal industrial activity.

He implies that amendments which would impair the main provisions of the Covenant might have to be referred back to the Peace Conference or to the nations that are parties to the contract and are therefore to be avoided as postponing concerted international action in favor of peace. But it is his opinion that certain reservations may be made which would not impair the Covenant and therefore would not be objected to by the therefore would not be objected to by the other contracting parties. Mr. Taft does not believe that reservations are necessary, but, as they are unobjectionable, proposes them as a means of compromise to secure ratification. Mr. Hughes, however, regards reservations as necessary in order that in establishing the League in order that in establishing the League "we should not make a false start." His reservations he puts in the form of the following proposed resolution :

The Senate of the United States of America advises and consents to the ratification of said Treaty with the following reservations and understandings as to its interpretation and effect to be made a part of the instrument of ratification :

First-That whenever two years' notice of withdrawal from the League of Nations shall have been given, as provided in Article I of the Covenant, the Power giving the notice shall cease to be a member of the League or subject

to the obligations of the Covenant of the League, at the time specified in the notice, notwithstanding any claim, charge, or finding of the non-fulfillment of any international obligation or of any obligation under said Covenant; provided, however, that such withdrawal shall not release the Power from any debt or liability theretofore incurred.

Second-That questions relating to immigration or the imposition of duties on imports, where such questions do not arise out of any international engagement, are questions of domestic policy, and these and any other questions which according to international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction are not to be submitted for the consideration or action of the League of Nations or of any of its agencies.

Third-That the meaning of Article XXI of the Covenant of the League of Nations is that the United States of America does not relinquish its traditional attitude toward purely American questions, and is not required by said Covenant to submit its policies regarding questions which it deems to be purely American questions to the League of Nations or any of its agencies, and that the United States of America may oppose and prevent any acquisition by any non-American Power by conquest, purchase, or in any other manner of any territory, possession, or control in the Western Hemisphere.

Fourth-That the meaning of Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations is that the members of the League are not under any obligation to act in pursuance of said Article except as they may decide to act upon the advice of the Council of the League. The United States of America assumes no obligation under sail Article to undertake any military expedition, or to employ its armed forces on land or sea, unless such action is authorized by the Congress of the United States of America, which has exclusive authority to declare war or to determine for the United States of America whether there is any obligation on its part under said Article and the means or action by which any such obligation shall be fulfilled.

We hope that it may not be as long and difficult a process for the United States Senate to frame and agree to reservations as it was for the Peace Conference to draw up the original document. It is certainly to be hoped that the Republican members of the Senate, with the concurrence of their Democratic colleagues, can in the very near future unite upon some clear and concise resolution of interpretation like that suggested by Mr. Hughes.

Advocates of immediate ratification of the Treaty and the Covenant believe that the provisions suggested by Mr. Hughes are already explicitly or implicitly in the original document. But if they are there no harm can be done in repeating them in fuller or clearer language. Such repe tition may, as Mr. Taft suggests, satisfy genuine doubts and objections, and thus enable the sincere advocates of judicial procedure as opposed to militarism and war to unite in a common effort which multitudes hope will prove to be a de