René-César Ley, is now residing in Switzerland for his political health. Professor Edmond Vermeil of the University of Strassburg, an ardent champion of France, is so disturbed over this agitation that he interprets it, in Le Figaro, as a conspiracy with ramifications extending not only to Germany but to Bavaria and Austria. Logically it is anti-Prussian as well as anti-French, and its avowed object is to set up a Federal Rhenish State. The Professor even suspects England of regarding this movement with a friendly eye, as likely to weaken the preponderance of either France or Germany in Europe, and admonishes his countrymen that the Alsatian autonomist movement may have, in addition to its roots in the little province of Alsace, a rather broad European horizon; and that France should be on her guard against what is happening at a point where so much is at stake for the future peace of the continent.

BELLIGERENT UNCLE SAM

AN anonymous writer publishes a statistical computation in Le Correspondant, a Conservative Paris review, to prove that the United States, the great advocate of disarmament, has increased its military expenditures, and France has decreased hers, since the good old days before the war. In 1913–14 our country's appropriations for the Army, Navy, and Air Service aggregated something over two hundred and fiftyseven million dollars. Eleven years later, when the latest available figures were published, they amounted to approximately six hundred and eighteen million dollars a nominal increase of 140 per cent, and a real increase, as measured in purchasing power, of 53 per cent. At the former date France expended upon these three services

about two and one-third billion francs. She spends to-day upon them slightly over six and one-third billion francs. Converting these francs into dollars, this amounts to a decrease of forty per cent. In 1914 France had forty-eight divisions of infantry. When the reductions now being made are completed she will have twenty-eight. At the same time her cavalry forces have been reduced from 445 to 180 squadrons, and her artillery from 826 to 480 batteries.

A PESSIMISTIC PROFESSOR

DOCTOR SHINKICHI UYESUGI of the Imperial University at Tokyo deplores in a recent issue of the Japan Times what he regards as the overhasty adoption of the pseudocivilization of the West by his countrymen of a generation or two ago. The result, he says, is that 'the Japanese are to-day a race not unlike a helpless wanderer in a desert, cut off from all their older traditions. The four time-honored classes of samurai, farmers, mechanics, and tradespeople resemble so many lost children, knowing nothing of their future.' The masses are sinking into a proletariat. Their leaders are bereft of counsels. Japan's proud national spirit has vanished, and the author feels sure that Japan as a State is fast dying, without waiting for a foreign invasion.'

Consequently the time has come to take new bearings. "The materialist theory of evolution, which explains the human species as derived from the lower monkey-forms, has utterly failed to solve the problems of individual freedom and personal dignity. Democracy, which means obeying the decision of a majority, has proved hopelessly incapable of producing true constitutional government.' Therefore Japan should return to her old institutions. She should strip off and cast

To that question there can be only one answer that the fault lies with Mr. Baldwin and his Government. And to justify this answer it is not really necessary to discuss any of the detailed rights and wrongs of the original problem. It is necessary only to state the fact

upon which everybody is agreed -that, apart from an utterly insignificant number of Die-hards and Communists, no one wanted a strike at all. If a Government cannot avert a disaster which all feared and none desired to precipitate, what is the use of having a Government at all. Up to the very last the 'atmosphere' of the negotiations was all that could be desired. All parties wished to be conciliatory.

1 From the New Statesman (London Independent weekly), May 8

There were no signs of violent passion or prejudice or undue pugnacity. The omens were favorable; we all of us not only hoped but believed that a settlement would be reached. In such circumstances the responsibility for a breakdown can lie only with one Party - namely, the Party which wields the whole power and authority of the State, and whose duty it is either to secure that which everyone wants or to make room for other men of greater courage and capacity.

The disaster was in fact precipitated by a single foolish decision, taken at a very late hour on Sunday night — or, rather, Monday morning. We refer to the letter in which the Government broke off negotiations. Some sort of excuse for the preposterous form and content of that document may perhaps be found in the fact that it was drafted by a group of very irritated and perhaps frightened men, worn out by days and nights of apparently fruitless discussion. But such excuses Governments have no right to plead. We do not suppose for a moment that if they had waited for the calmer thoughts of the next morning any such official ultimatum would have ever been issued. But once issued it could not be withdrawn, and so Monday passed without the slightest attempt on the part of the Government to avert a quite clearly avertible catastrophe-for it seems almost certain that if the discussions had been continued for another twentyfour hours a basis of agreement would have been reached.

The Government offered two reasons for breaking off the negotiations. The first was that it was impossible and even improper to negotiate under the threat of a general strike. In view of the fact that the Government had already been negotiating under the said threat for thirty-six hours it is difficult to take this reason very seriously. The second reason was that 'overt acts' threatening the freedom of the press had already been committed. This referred of course to the incident which occurred in the office of the Daily Mail late on Sunday night and of which news had been telephoned through to Downing Street. It was an essentially trivial incident due to the action of only a score or so of men acting, not only without orders, but against the whole spirit of the general instructions which had been issued to them. Their refusal to run the machines unless a certain leading article- it was a very harmless and commonplace sort of article were altered was utterly indefensible, so indefensible that even their fellow trade-unionists in the composing rooms protested against it. It is true that on the following day similar and more serious incidents occurred in other newspaper offices in London, but that was after the Government had declared war-by breaking off negotiations and a wholly new situation had arisen. The Daily Mail affair was merely a piece of sporadic mutiny. In regard to the general position it was quite irrelevant, proving nothing save that nerves were on edge on both sides.

Thus a few Daily Mail machine-men were allowed to precipitate the greatest and most unnecessary strike that has ever occurred in any country. Their action was a blunder and a crime; but the counteraction of the Government was a thousand times greater blunder and greater crime. It would be incredible, if the Prime Minister himself

had not admitted it in the House of Commons on Wednesday, that it was this incident - the unconsidered action of twenty or thirty irresponsible machine-men- which induced the Cabinet to break off negotiations and make a general strike inevitable. Mr. Baldwin has admitted also that the negotiations seemed at that moment to be on the very verge of success a 'formula' had at last been discovered which the miners' leaders appeared to be willing to accept. In a few more hours peace would probably have been achieved. But the Prime Minister took up the challenge of the hot-heated employees of the Daily Mail and sent the trade-union leaders packing. Words fail us to describe such a decision. Foolish, incomprehensible, idiotic epithet seems to be adequate.

-no

For this crucial decision, at any rate, it is not possible to throw any blame either upon the mineowners or upon the miners. On the general merits of the coal dispute we certainly think that the mineowners are in the wrong. They have shown themselves a very stubborn and stupid set of men. But they have only acted, after all, as most owners act in trade disputes. That is to say, they stood out for impossible terms, knowing them to be impossible, but unwilling to make concessions until the real bargaining should begin. For that we cannot reasonably blame them; nor can we blame them for having refused to withdraw their lockout notices. They would, of course, have withdrawn them quickly enough if the Government had insisted upon their doing so; but without some such external pressure they could not be expected to make so great a preliminary concession.

As for the miners, we really do not see that they can be blamed for any single step that they have taken. They are defending a standard of life which for tens of thousands of them is ap

pallingly low-lower than that of casual unskilled laborers in many other trades. The terms proposed by the owners would have reduced a large proportion of them to the level of bare starvation. They were willing, however, to negotiate, on this and all other questions. The Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons on Monday, that they had definitely 'refused to accept either a minute extra or a penny off' was utterly untrue. He may have thought it was true; indeed, since he is a truthful man, we suppose he did; but if so he had most woefully failed to understand the situation.

The miners' leaders were willing to discuss certain wage reductions, but they refused, and quite rightly refused, to pledge themselves to any reduction unless they received adequate assurances that some serious attempt would be made by the Government to enforce the reorganization of the industry upon more efficient lines. And no such assurances were forthcoming. Mr. Baldwin, it is true, had said that he was willing to accept the recommendations of the Samuel Commission on this subject, but in view of the impenitent attitude of the owners an assurance of that sort was obviously worth nothing at all, unless the Government was prepared to offer a definite scheme of reorganization, with a promise to enforce it if necessary by legislation. The miners were prepared to face misfortune and to accept a measure of privation for a year or two if they could obtain some real assurance that every effort would be made in the meantime to place the industry on its feet-as it certainly can be placed within a reasonable period, but they were not prepared to accept immediate and concrete reductions in return for mere platonic expressions of good-will on the part of Mr. Baldwin. And who can say that

they were wrong? They were supported at any rate by the Report of the Royal Commission, whose very first recommendation was that—

Before any sacrifices are asked from those engaged in the industry it shall be definitely agreed that all practicable means for improving its organization should be adopted.

The Royal Commission said further

that

It is necessary, finally, to emphasize the fact that, in our view, revision of the minimum percentage (that is, of wages) should depend upon the acceptance by all parties of such new measures of reorganization as will secure to the industry a new lease of prosperity leading to higher wages.

'All parties,' however, had by no means accepted any such measures; nor had the Government avowed any serious and practical intention of securing reorganization. Yet Mr. Baldwin, while apparently supporting the owners' demand for a longer working day (which the Commission condemned and rejected), complained that it was the men who were refusing to accept the Report - simply because they would not bind themselves in advance to agree to wage reductions.

Upon this attitude some very severe comments might legitimately be made. This is not, however, a moment for any recrimination which can possibly be avoided. What is urgently necessary is simply that the facts of the present situation should be clearly understood. Negotiations, which should never have been broken off, can be resumed at any moment. Whether the strike is to go on for hours or for weeks depends entirely upon the Government-upon its ability, that is to say, to repair its blunder of Sunday night. Negotiations can be reopened as soon as Mr. Baldwin chooses to reopen them. If the coal lockout is canceled the general strike will be instantly canceled. But even without any