and Labor-a popular and influential citizen of California-is exceedingly embarrassing if Mr. Taft voiced the sentiment of his colleagues when he said at Miami University in condemning the exclusion laws:

"Ought we to throw away the advantage which we have by reason of Chinese natural friendship for us and continue to enforce an unjustly severe law, and thus create in the Chinese mind a disposition to boycott American trade and to drive our merchants from Chinese shores, simply because we are afraid that we may for the time lose the approval of certain unreasonable and extreme popular leaders of California and other coast States? Does the question not answer itself? Is it not the duty of members of Congress and of the Executive to disregard the unreasonable demands of portion of the community deeply prejudiced upon this subject in the Far West and insist on extending justice and courtesy to a people from whom we are deriving, and are likely to derive, such immense benefit in the way of international trade?"

But whether the prediction that Secretary Metcalf will resign be baseless or not, it should be noted that he did not remain silent in the face of censure and complaint. In fact he gave the President some belated information in excuse of the acts done by his department; and besides, he is reported as bluntly saying in an interview that "the exclusion law is not harshly administered." His defense for whatever severities his subordinates may have shown to the Chinese is explained by the Boston Herald substantially as follows:

"Secretary Metcalf accuses the Chinese Government, or at least Chinese officials, of issuing fraudulent certificates to Chinese coolies. In these certificates the coolies are described as receiving certificates from the officials of their own country which are intended, under our law, to enable merchants, students, and travelers to enter freely into this country and to travel through it. These certificates are countersigned by our own diplomatic and consular officers. The harshest words which the President and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor apply to our own officers in speaking of these certificates is that they have been negligent. They have countersigned, in other words, the fraudulent certificates, so called, given by Chinese officials, and, doing it carelessly, have enabled a great many coolies to come to the United States under the pretense of being merchants, students, or travelers."

But while, as the Herald further remarks, "the harshness manifested by the administrators of the exclusion law is born of dislike to the Chinamen, or is due to the willingness of our officials, and to their readiness, also, to heed the voice of those who vote on the

Pacific coast," yet nevertheless it very plainly appears that two diametrically opposing views are entertained regarding the exclusion law even in these Pacific coast States where the true hotbed of the anti-Chinese sentiment is located. The laboring classes want the laws enforced with all the severity allowable. On the other hand, the business men, as a rule, desire that there should be a liberal interpretation and administration of the law in favor of the Chinese. The Detroit Free Press, in commenting upon this feature of the case, remarks:

"Sentiment in the Far West was supposedly solid in favor of the most rigid enforcement of the law possible, but a change is taking place among business men and manufacturers, who are beginning to realize the peril confronting this country as a result of the threatened boycott of American-made goods by the Chinese commercial guilds. This is evidenced by the action of the Portland, Ore., chamber of commerce in telegraphing President Roosevelt calling attention to the conditions existing and earnestly recommending a more liberal interpretation of the laws and the appointment of a commission to investigate the matter and recommend to Congress such legislation as will promote increased harmony between the two nations."

The New York Herald says:

"On the other hand, the temper of the labor unions, particularly those on the Pacific coast, may be inferred from the fact that a new organization has been formed in California to urge that the Chinese exclusion act be extended to exclude Japanese and Korean laborers from the United States and its insular possessions."

TH

"PROFESSIONAL AMATEURS" IN ATHLETICS. HE agitation stirred up by Mr. Henry Beach Needham's account of "Commercialism in College Athletics" continues to go on. Much wholesome discussion of the evil complained of has taken place. As will be recalled by reference to our digest of comment in these columns a month ago, Mr. Needham went no further than to state the facts and to deprecate the condition which they disclosed. Subsequent writers, however, have been so bold as to ascribe a cause for the trouble and to suggest the remedy. Perhaps the most forcible article in this direction, which has fol lowed Mr. Needham's exposé, is that of Mr. Caspar Whitney, published in the July number of Outing. Mr. Whitney has been studying and writing on college sports for twenty years, and for this reason more than usual importance is attached to all that he

says on the subject. He does not take quite the alarming view of the case which Mr. Needham takes, as the following quotation will show :

"Within the time I have so closely followed the subject I have seen the standard improve from corruption to comparative purity. There is no comparison between the condition of college athletics to-day and that of say ten years ago. Cases of rule infringement, of ineligible students played, are to-day the exceptions at our leading colleges. Ten to twelve years ago they were the rule."

But, nevertheless, Mr. Whitney admits that Mr. Needham's article "marshals an array of facts bearing on commercialism in college sport which is startling." It seems to be the opinion of Mr. Whitney that the employment of "professional coaches" does more than any other cause to foster and maintain the spirit of commercialism in college athletics. His words in support of this contention are as follows:

I say that in my judgment, based upon a score of years of close study of this subject, the professional coach has more to do with the present spirit in our universities of winning at any cost than any other single factor. There are many excellent men who are professionals. I make no criticism of them individually; I would not be interpreted as reflecting upon their honesty of purpose or their personal character. In the nature of things, in the common sense of things, the man who is employed to coach and make football teams, baseball teams, track teams, crews, what you will, is bound to be governed by the single thought of winning. It is his business; it is his reputation; it is his life's work, his success, his all in all to turn out teams that beat the combinations of a rival university. He must win in order to hold his job."

But if all of Mr. Whitney's charges be true, there is no immediate danger that the professional coach will lose his job, and there is also but little hope that any other of the practises objected to will soon be abandoned; for the faculties, alumni, and students of all the larger colleges, in his belief, appear to be entirely willing to allow the present order of things to remain. Says Mr. Whitney:

...

"Regularly as the football season comes around, presidents and gentlemen in high standing in the university world relieve themselves of certain pent-up feelings through the newspapers. Football is damned from kick to touch-down, charged with trickery, charged with unmaking of character, charged with all crimes on the calendar from A to Z. . . . But when the football season draws near and the baseball season is at hand, and various individual illustrations of these practises that have been so vigorously denounced are brought to the attention of our worthy presidents and faculty members and athletic-committee chairmen-behold an instant scramble for a stretching of the rule to fit the particular case!" When the rule has at last been stretched so as to permit "recruiting" and the employment of real professionals and professional amateurs, "the president shifts his responsibility to the chairman of the athletic committee, and the athletic committee shifts it to the alumnus-and the alumnus saws wood every minute." But Mr. Whitney declares that "the president and the athletic committee and the college itself should not escape condemnation by putting the odium" of these evil practises "on alumni shoulders"; especially so when these college officials could end the trouble and scandal simply by doing their plain duty. In conclusion, Mr. Whitney says:

“If Harvard and Yale should get together, whether as to faculties or athletic committees or bodies of alumni, and say we will have no men on our teams-regardless of the individual's athletic ability, regardless of what it meant to the strength or weakness of their respective teams-who have played on semi-professional ball nines, who are being assisted,' who, in a word, have transgressed the letter or spirit of the Providence rules-there would be instant end to all transgression. But the facts are that, while President Eliot of Harvard and President Hadley of Yale are preaching and writing against uncleanliness in college athletics, their athletic committees are about to pass a rule whitewashing any athlete who has accepted money for his playing skill before he was nineteen years of age! They say this is an effort to separate the

black sheep from the gray ones. And that is just the point; just an illustration of the spirit of commercialism in our college sport. Why separate the black from the gray? Why consider the gray at all? What is the matter with keeping our sport to those concerning whose color there is no question? Why should our colleges be always making rules in order to get in desirable athletes who have in some direction or in some way violated the written law or the spirit of amateur sport? Why must the nine have a man who is tainted? Why can not the faculties rise above the pressing demand of the football captain? Why are Yale and Pennsylvania bidding in rivalry for the services of a trainer?"

President Roosevelt also referred to this subject in his address to the graduates at Harvard on Wednesday of last week. After speaking favorably of "rough games," but decrying brutality, he said:

And, finally, it is a much worse thing to permit college sport to become in any shape or way tainted by professionalism, or by so much as the slightest suspicion of money-making; and this is especially true if the professionalism is furtive, if the boy or man violates the spirit of the rule while striving to keep within the letter.

"Professional sport is all right in its way. I am glad to say that among my friends I number professional boxers and wrestlers, oarsmen, and baseball men, whose regard I value, and whom in turn I regard as thoroughly good citizens. But the college undergraduate who, in furtive fashion, becomes a semi-professional is an unmitigated curse, and that not alone to university life and to the cause of amateur sport; for the college graduate ought in after years to take the lead in putting the business morality of this country on a proper plane, and he can not do it if in his own college career his code of conduct has been warped and twisted."

NAVAL AUTHORITIES ON THE NAVAL

ΤΗ

BATTLE.

HERE still seems to be a lack of authentic and definite information as to many important details of the Battle of the Sea of Japan and of the other naval operations in the Far East. A few facts, however, have been established, and from these experts are trying to find the lessons to be taught by the remarkable and uninterrupted series of Japanese successes. Perhaps the most interesting contribution to the literature of the subject is the article by Captain A. T. Mahan (in Collier's Weekly of June 17), who is looked upon by many as America's foremost critic in naval affairs. We gather from Captain Mahan's article that, while the Russians had more battle-ships, they had fewer armored cruisers and torpedo-vessels; and that the deficiency in these two latter classes was so pronounced as to give to the Japanese a decided superiority in the number of armored vessels and in the total of the fighting units of their fleet. The other advantages possessed by the Japanese were a home base and such fine training and experience that there was 'no approach to equality in the efficiency of the opposing ships' companies." Under these adverse circumstances Admiral Rozhdestvensky steamed with full speed ahead through the Tsushima Strait in two columns, with the weaker and lighter vessels toward the enemy, whom he met at the eastern entrance of the strait at close on to 2 P.M.—a fact which Captain Mahan brings out to show that the opposing fleets had only five hours and a half of daylight in which to fight on the first day of the battle.

In commenting upon the Russian admiral's disposition of his vessels, Captain Mahan says: “I should certainly hesitate to join in condemning the arrangement, tactically considered. Least of all should I do so on the ground I have seen that this lighter line was thrown into confusion and so reacted upon and confused the main battle line." The arrangement, however, proved disastrous to the Russians, on account of the superior seamanship of Togo, who clearly outmaneuvered his opponent by hurling all his availaThere ble force on his lighter line and throwing it into disorder. would be in such conditions," Captain Mahan asserts, “nothing to cause confusion among capable and self-possessed captains."

numbers, and enforces again the need for numbers, as well as for individual power."

So, in view of all known circumstances, Captain Mahan makes the emphatic assertion that "the superiority of the battle-ship and of the gun for the main purposes of naval warfare has not been shaken." In conclusion, the captain speaks of the report that, in spite of the disorder which reigned, the crippled battle-ships beat off after dark two attacks of the whole flotilla of the enemy's destroyers, and remarks:

66

Should the official accounts confirm this, it will approach demonstration that uninjured battle-ships, manned by watchful seamen who keep their head, will in the long run suffer from torpedo attack only in the same proportion as any military force suffers from other incidents of war.. Let it be mentioned also that the torpedovessel, from the delicacy of its constitution-a box of machinéryand from the narrowness of its coal supply, will always be most numerous and efficient in home waters. This advantage in this case fell to the Japanese, and it may have contributed to determine Togo's choice of position. This particular consideration shows that, in the broad view of naval policy, the function of the torpedovessel is defensive, altho its local action is offensive."

Other experts who have essayed to analyze the results of the naval operations in the Far East all seem to agree with the main conclusion reached by Captain Mahan, which is that the battleship still remains supreme. Thus Captain Edward W. Very, late U. S. N., says, in Harper's Weekly for July 1:

From stereograph, copyright 1905, by Underwood & Underwood, New York.

STREET DECORATIONS IN YOKOHAMA.

After the smashing of the Russian fleet in the sea of Japar.

bine to advantage" and to turn this trick, and hence he draws his first conclusion as to the lessons of the Battle of the Sea of Japan.

He says:

"This, if accurately inferred from the instance before us, sounds again the warning, continually repeated, but in vain, that in distributing fleet tonnage regard must be had to numbers, quite as really as to the size of the individual ship. This I say, while fully conscious of the paradox that an amount of power developed in a single ship is more efficient than the same amount in two. In part, the present Japanese success has been the triumph of greater numbers, skilfully combined, over superior individual ship power, too concentrated for flexibility of movement."

The only part which Captain Mahan finds that the torpedo-boats played in this great fight was to increase "the confusion once initiated," and to attack an enemy crippled and broken" under 'cover of darkness" which soon came on. Captain Mahan admits that in this crisis the torpedo craft did excellent service, but nevertheless he declares:

"Yet, altho we may be sure they did much good work, the testimony more and more seems to show that the decisive effect had been produced by the guns, and that the destroyers acted mainly the part of cavalry, rounding up and completing the destruction of a foe already decisively routed. It may be believed that they in many cases sank what the Japanese, in Nelson's phrase, might have considered already' their own ships.' It is reported that this enveloping movement was shared also by some of the armored vessels, moving by the rear, and seemingly also to the other side; a distribution of vessels followed by combination of movementcorresponding to analysis and synthesis-which is only possible to

From stereograph, copyright 1905, by Underwood & Underwood, New York. CELEBRATING THE VICTORY IN TOKYO.

how valuable as a fighting unit that substitute may be within its own province. Nor does it lie in retrograding the size and power of future battle-ships, for in this the unit of the squadron so vitally necessary for thorough efficiency is sacrificed. If a sacrifice is to be made, it must be in magnitude of the power as a whole, but never under any circumstances should a single step be taken that shall endanger the thorough efficiency of whatever limited power there be."

And Commander Bradley A. Fiske, U. S. N., in the same magazine says:

"Many Congressmen of undoubted ability and patriotism, and

distinguished in their own professions, have challenged the declaration of the men of the naval profession that they needed very large battle-ships. Now what the recent successes of Japan have done for naval officers, and therefore for the country, is to prove that they were right. Some of the immediate results are easy to foresee. One is that the great American fleet, so long desired and needed, will at last come into being."

IF

...

THE RUSSIAN NAVAL MUTINY.

F there were any doubts in the American press that a rebellion is under way in Russia, the events of last week seem to have removed them. With the remnant of the Czar's navy saturated with the spirit of mutiny, and with the uprisings in Odessa, Lodz, and Warsaw, and a score or more towns in all parts of Russia, our papers hold out little hope for the future of the Czar's reign. "The Russian Empire continues on its eighteen-hour schedule to ruin," declares the New York Mail; and the New York Globe thinks that "it is evident that organized revolt is under way." The Philadelphia Press says:

But speculation is as useless and as fruitless, now that the storm of revolution, successful or not, has broken, as to predict midway the next stroke of a storm or of earthquake.”

Probably the most sensational of all the happenings in Russia, last week, was the outbreak aboard some of the war-ships of the Black Sea fleet. The mutiny began on board the Kniaz Potemkine, and followed, it is reported, the shooting of a sailor, who in behalf of his comrades had made a complaint against bad treatment. On June 28 the battle-ship was seized by the insurgent crew, who hoisted a red flag, and, putting in at Odessa, became the fighting allies of the strikers on shore. At that time anarchy ran riot in Odessa. The populace resisted the troops, burned public buildings, and much of the shipping around the harbor. As at Lodz, the week before, the casualties are hard to ascertain. Finally the military gained control of the situation, while Admiral Kruger, in command of the Black Sea fleet, was sent to capture or sink the Kniaz Potemkine, which threatened the city. Kruger arrived at Odessa on June 30, but the Kniaz refused to surrender, and, to make matters worse, was joined by the battle-ship Georgi Pobiedonosetz. Kruger signalled his ships to proceed to Sevastopol, but these two ships refused to obey. The Admiral, it is said, was afraid to fire on the mutineers, because of the mutinous state of his own men. The men aboard the Pobiedonosetz, after a day in mutiny, offered to surrender, but the Kniaz Potemkine proceeded to cruise about the Black Sea. The condition aboard the vessels of the Black Sea fleet was such that the Admiralty decided to put the crews ashore and to ungear the machinery.

"If the spirit of the men on the Kniaz Potemkine fairly represents that of the rest of the men in the ranks of the Czar's navy and army, we need not go far to seek the reason for the one-sided victory in the Sea of Japan and for the successive Japanese victories on the plains of Manchuria," declares the Philadelphia Ledger; and the New York Evening Post, in commenting on the mutiny on the Kniaz Potemkine says:

"The history of navies could be overhauled for a century back without finding as tragic or startling a story as that which came from Odessa yesterday. Not even Marryat or Cooper ever portrayed in their sea novels the crew of a large man-of-war rising against their own officers, and certainly this is the first time that

the red flag of anarchy has ever been flung to the breeze from a war-ship's masthead. On the face of the news, it is hard to believe that the mutiny was merely the result of serving bad food. The Russian sailor is accustomed to ill-treatment, to being kicked and cuffed about the decks, and it hardly required the fact that two torpedo-boats are supporting the crew of the Kniaz Potemkine, and the St. Petersburg rumors that the men on other ships have risen, to make it appear as if the Odessa tragedy were part of a well-thought-out revolutionary plan. But none of the tragic happenings which have affected Russia these last two months so clearly shows the seething popular discontent with present conditions. These sailors have had no long cruises to make under trying conditions, as had Rohzdestvensky's men when they showed signs of insubordination off Madagascar. But, doubtless, the sailors of the Black Sea squadron have felt deeply the sacrifice of their comrades of the Baltic fleet, and have longed for a chance to express their opinions for this reason alone. It is not surprising that the news has created a panic in St. Petersburg, and that there is already a belief that more than one regiment is disaffected. If this army dissatisfaction spreads, the throne will totter. Its only support to-day is bayonets, and if these fail there will be a crash to shake the world."

THE

BEEF TRUST INDICTMENTS.

`HE indictment of seventeen beef magnates and five of their corporations for violating the Sherman anti-trust law does not seem to inspire the press with the conviction that the magnates will go to jail, that the “trust" will be broken up, or that the price of meat will fall. The New York American notes that on the same day that the Federal grand jury returned these indictments in Chicago, the Cook County grand jury, sitting in the same city, returned indictments against forty-seven strikers and labor agitators for offenses committed in connection with the teamster's strike, and it asks which are more likely to be sent to prison. The meat-trust indictments bear the names of some of the most prominent packers in the country, such as J. Ogden Armour, Charles Armour, Louis F. Swift, Charles Swift, Edward F. Swift, Edward Cudahy, Edward Morris, and Ira W. Morris. The New York Tribune thinks that crime has been committed in the operations of the beef industry, and expresses the hope that it will be shown that our system of justice is “as ready and powerful in dealing with the lawbreakers working through great industrial corporations as with those working through labor unions." The New York World (Dem.) and Press (Rep.) seize this occasion to make some rather slurring comparisons between the beef-trust case and the Morton rebate case. "Fortunately no beef-packer is a member of the cabinet," remarks The World; and The Press says:

"We do not dare to imagine what would have happened in the beef-trust cases if instead of Mr. J. Ogden Armour the president of that organization had been Mr. Paul Morton or some one with an equal claim on the unlimited friendship of President Roosevelt. The public can only be grateful that the Administration had no friends to protect from justice at Chicago, and must hail with satisfaction the indictment of the twenty-one men who have maintained the cruel conspiracy popularly identified as the beef trust." John S. Miller, of counsel for the packing firms, says:

"I ask for the packers who have been indicted the withholding of judgment until their side of this matter can be properly presented. I think the investigation on which these indictments are based was instituted and carried on with the previous conviction that the accused were guilty, and that the thing to accomplish was to get the evidence. The packers have been held in prejudice and condemned by being called a beef trust, by continued and repeated charges, without proofs, and by gross falsehood and misrepresentations. The Garfield report accurately stated the facts in respect to the packing business, but its results, which were truthful and accurate, did not agree with the exaggerated and false charges that have been made.

"The packers are not violators of the Sherman act. They have endeavored to comply with the law in the best of faith, and in my opinion they have done so."

LETTERS AND ART.

THE FAIRYLAND DRAMA OF J. M. BARRIE.

"

PROOF of Mr. Barrie's value to the stage," declares Max Beerbohm, "is that his plays would not have the faintest chance of being produced if they were written by any other man. As it is, not only are they produced, but their production is a source of much profit both to the author and to Mr. Charles Frohman, the manager who had enough business imagination to present them.

Mr. Barrie's more recent successes have been won in London by 'Peter Pan; or the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up," "Pantaloon," and "Alice Sit-by-the-fire." The first of these, which will probably be seen in America next season, is characterized by Mr. Sydney Brooks as 'almost perfect Barry." Writing in Harper's Weekly (June 24), Mr. Brooks says of this play:

"Nobody but Mr. Barrie could have written it; nobody but he would have even had the courage to conceive it. Fairyland, and the dreams of a boy of ten, and all the logical topsy turvyness of childhood dramatized-actually dramatized! You begin in a nursery and you end in the Never Never Never Land. You have children bathed and tucked up in bed, with a gigantic dog for a nurse; you have them taught how to fly by Peter Pan-and fly they do, out of the nursery window, to where Peter lives underground with boys who have been spilled from their perambulators by careless nurse-maids; you have everything you ever did in those early waking dreams that no sleeping ones ever rival afterwardfights with wolves, gorgeous Stevensonian battles with pirates, intoxicating Fenimore-Cooperish wallowings in the blood of Indians; you have, in short, yourself as you always knew you would be if only you had your chance-the invincible patriot, the reckless swashbuckler, the tireless enemy of the Jolly Roger, and the casual rescuer of beauty in distress. All this' Peter Pan' gives you, this and much else; till you feel that justice has been done to your merits at last. That there are in it passages that seem overstrained, and some, tho not many, ' false notes,' is very possible; but who cares for that? When a genius can make us all remember what too many of us forget, can take us back, and can reconstruct the very essence and vitality of childhood, it is the part of wisdom to accept without cavil. That is how London has accepted Peter Pan.' That, too, of a surety is how New York will accept it."

Mr. George Henry Payne, in a London letter to The Evening Telegram (New York), declares that in "Peter Pan" Barrie has written around "the eternal truth of motherhood" a play "that will live for years and years, and even more years." It is, says

Mr. Payne," the new note in play writing." From his description we quote as follows:

The play opens almost like one of the modern English comedies - a piece of daring indeed for one who is about to spin a fairy tale of as tenuous tissue as that of Grimm or Andersen. Mr. and Mrs. Darling, before going out to a fashionable dinner, are saying good-night in the nursery to their children.

"Peter Pan, hunting for his shadow, as all things of air are always hunting for some sign of body or flesh, comes flying in at the window of the nursery, and Wende, waking, meets for the first time a real representative of the Fairy Land. But the fairies, Peter tells her, are fast dying out, for Every time a little child says she does not believe in fairies a fairy drops dead.'

"Off to the Never Never Land Peter takes the three children, for Wende has promised to be a mother to him-you see, Peter never had a mother-and you can imagine how excited the children are at being taken to a place where they will see fairies and have nothing to do but fly about all day. And the wonderful things that happen in the Never Never Land! The pirates come to steal Wende, for even the fierce pirates know that if you have a mother no harm can come to you, and Wende is such a good little mother that her fame spreads rapidly. Then the Indians fight the pirates, but they are defeated in a terrible battle and Wende and the lost children-for the Never Never Land is inhabited by the children who fell out of their perambulators when nurses were flirting with policemen-are carried away.

'Before Wende goes she has made Peter promise to take his

medicine regularly and be sure to wear heavy underwear until the late spring. But his medicine has been poisoned by the pirates, and Tinklebell, the faithful fairy companion, takes it herself to save Peter.

"But Tinklebell is dying; she grows dimmer and dimmer, for to human eyes a real fairy seems only a dancing light. Peter is in despair and bethinks him of the only thing that really can save a fairy's life, and down to the footlights he rushes and throwing out both hands in a fervent appeal:

who did not respond. The demonstration lasted several minutes, and as an insight into human nature was one of the finest scenes one could witness.

"Of the Barrie humor with which the play is filled, of the insight into life and modern foibles, of the intellectual strength of many a jesting point, one could write columns. And yet Peter Pan is a fairy story, a real fairy story with music and dances and what not, the fairy story of the beauty of motherhood, the fairy story of keeping children young."