stood his voyage had a particular relation to the boycott and the vexed questions arising therefrom. In the Philippines, as a matter of course, it was understood that his coming meant something."

The press are now casting up and weighing the results of this now famous trip. The Detroit News (Ind.) says that the voyagers found that in Hawaii “ annexation has advanced prosperity and swelled the fortunes of a few sugar magnates, but... dampened every other line of productive endeavor"; the Spokane Spokesman-Review (Ind. Rep.) states that "Secretary Taft's visit to Canton has produced good results in the way of lessening the boycott and antiforeign sentiment"; the New

In China it seems to have been under

1

York Evening Post (Ind.) declares that one result of the Taft party's trip to the Philippines is that nobody sneaks any longer of the Filipino desire for American rule"; but the Louisville CourierJournal (Dem.) thinks that the trip was a success at every point, not only as a means of correcting false information, but also in assisting to bring about a friendly sentiment toward the United States in the Orient. The Courier-Journal says that the visit to Tokyo when the peace negotiations were pending "relieved the incident of certain international embarrassment," that the visit to China undoubtedly exerted influence “in checking the boycott movement," and then, referring to the short stay in the Philip pines, it continues:

"For some time there had been developing in Manila and elsewhere through the archipelago a reactionary influence bordering upon discontent and opposition to the civil Government. Concurrent with the recognition of the civil rights of the people, the establishment of schools and various other means devised for the development of better ideals of government and greater individuality among the citizens, a system of assessment and collection of taxes upon their property had been put in operation. This was an innovation which proved unpopular and caused sensible discontent among the Filipinos. The effect of this was apprehended and it was even feared that it had gone too far to be effectively counteracted without serious trouble.

66

". . . This produced an excellent effect upon the Filipinos and went far to strengthen his influence in bringing them in better accord with the civil Government and confirming their confidence in the justice and fair treatment of the Government at Washington. This local success effected at Manila was reinforced by similar interest shown by his visits to other principal islands, to such extent that General Corbin, in command of that military department, has within the past few days announced that such peaceable conditions prevail throughout the archipelago that no additional troops will be needed. If no other result had followed Judge Taft's visit it might well have been regarded as fully justifying the trip."

TH

IS THERE WORK FOR ALL?

HE census of 1900 gives the number of persons engaged in gainful occupations who were unemployed during any portion of that year as about 6,500,000, or nearly 22 per cent. of the working population. Last year it was said that an astoundingly large number of men were unable to find employment. In New York alone it was reported that 100,000 men could not get work. Mr. Leroy Scott, writing in The World's Work, casts considerable doubt upon these statements. After a first-hand investigation of men out of work in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston, Mr. Scott comes to the conclusion that the problem is not so much to find work for the unemployed, but to find men who will work. For much of his information on this subject the writer seems to have relied upon the experiences of the charity organizations, the municipal lodging-houses, and investigators who make observations from within the ranks of the unemployed.

The manager of a Chicago employment agency is quoted by Mr. Scott to have said, in reply to an inquiry as to whether there were not a great many men out of work, "Sure; but 90 per cent. of the people out of work don't want work." The writer proceeds to give some substantial proof to show that this is so. Mr. Benjamin C. Marsh, secretary of the Pennsylvania Society to Protect Children from Cruelty, studied 118 men picked at random, who found refuge in the municipal lodging-houses, the men all saying that they were looking for work. Employment was secured for 31 of the 118. Eleven soon threw up their jobs, and only 6 stuck to their work. Forty-five men, when they learned that an effort was being

made to find work for them, suddenly disappeared. Mr. Marsh at one time dressed himself in old clothes and set out to test the truth of the reports that there was no work to be had. At the end of the day he had 16 jobs on which to begin work next morning. He urged several men to take these positions, but they refused. A large number of men have difficulty in finding and holding positions, even when they look for them, because they are unemployable. "An almost universal fault with the men in this class,” writes Mr. Scott, "is that they desert their jobs after pay-day, for a spree, or if they do work for a considerable time, they spend their earnings as fast as they are secured." Among unorganized workers men are frequently unemployed through a desire to choose their jobs. Mr. Scott goes on to say:

"The stories of suffering that appear in city newspapers are also untrustworthy evidence. In some cases the reporters are deceived; in some cases they purposely exaggerate. For two years the Philadelphia Society for Organizing Charity has investigated every case of destitution reported in the Philadelphia newspapers. Very few have proved genuine.

"It is thus seen at dozens of points subtractions must be made from the popular conception of the number of unemployed. Similarly the Census Department's 6,500,000 is a vast overstatement, as the department itself explains. These figures include the wealthy leisure class, that other leisure class to which considerable attention has here been given, those too old to work, those taking an earned rest, those whose employment (masons, farmers, etc.) can not occupy them all the time, and workers between ten and twenty years old. School alone will account for a large part of the unemployment of this last class.

"To say that there is no unemployment would be an absurd statement, but, nevertheless, a statement as near the truth as some of the estimates of the number of unemployed that have been current. There is a large body of unemployed, and their problem is most serious. But if from the total number of the unemployed we subtract those who are out of work from choice or because unfit for employment, we would find that the remainder, the able-bodied eager searchers for work, would be but a small fraction of the popular estimate, and a small fraction of the estimate of the Census Department. And if every manless job could be filled the number of unemployed might possibly be reduced to nothing; at least this is as safe a guess as some others that are boldly made. The problem of the unemployed has usually been stated-to find work for the man. Many whose duties bring them into constant touchwith the unemployed state it-to find men who will work."

TOPICS IN BRIEF.

Ir must make the policy-holder rather proud to discover that he could furnish money for such a variety of purposes.-The Detroit News.

SOUR GRAPES?-A baseball pennant is only a piece of light, thin cloth, comparatively valueless, and not worth fighting for, anyway.-The Chicago Tribune ̧

A CERTAIN amount of admiration is due the beef trust for the manner in which it continues to do business after it has been crushed.-The Detroit Free Press.

"DURING the campaign," said the political boss, “you must never fail to hold up American industries." For how much?" asked the innocent candidate.The Chicago News.

THE present expense of the Panama canal amounts to $650,000 a month, and the principal digging being done is in Uncle Sam's capacious pocket.-The Atlanta Constitution.

A YOUNG man who weighs about 200 pounds and has muscles in proportion is apt to be joyously surprised this year at the ease of the college entrance-examinations. The Chicago News.

MR. ROCKEFELLER must be sorry now he engaged in so unremunerative a business as selling oil, instead of organizing an insurance company.— - The Detroit Free Press.

LACKING any other clearly defined issue, the Democrats might go into the next campaign with a demand for a fair division of the corporation contributions to the campaign fund.- The Washington Post.

SECRETARY TAFT is advising the Filipinos on the principles of American government. Doubtless he called their attention to the fundamental principle of nominating an Ohio man for the presidency.-The Atlanta Journal.

THE Republicans who object to depriving the negro of his vote in Virginia may point proudly to the shining example of Philadelphia, where the Republicans have not only deprived no living man of his ballot, but for years have allowed 50,000 dead people to keep on voting.-The Baltimore Sun.

LETTERS AND ART.

BERNARD SHAW AND AMERICAN
"COMSTOCKERY."

MR. GEORGE BERNARD SHAW professes to regard the

banishment of his "Man and Superman" from the "open" shelves of the New York Free Lending Libraries as "a public and official insult from the American people." The facts of the case, as stated by the press, are briefly as follows: Dr. Arthur E. Bostwick, head of the circulation department of the thirty or more free libraries of Manhattan, decided to exclude "Man and Superman " from the "open" shelves, those shelves being accessible to children. The removal of the book to the "closed" shelves means that it can be procured only upon application to the librarian. According to a Times reporter, whose version he declines either to deny or to confirm, Dr. Bostwick gave the reason for his action in the following words:

"His [Shaw's] attacks on existing social conditions are very radical and are almost certain to be misinterpreted by children.

"Take Man and Superman,' for example. Supposing that play fell into the hands of a little east-sider. Do you think it would do him any good to read that the criminal before the bar of justice is no more of a criminal than the magistrate trying him? Do you think that would tend to lower the statistics of juvenile crime?"

Mr. Shaw describes Dr. Bostwick s action as a manifestation of that "Comstockery" which "is the world's standing joke at the expense of the United States." "It confirms," he asserts in a vigorous letter of protest to the New York Times, "the deepseated conviction of the Old World that America is a provincial place, a second-rate civilization, after all." He comforts himself, however, with the reminder that "everybody knows I know better than your public-library officials what is proper for people to read, whether they are young or old.' If I had the misfortune to be a citizen of the United States," he continues, "I should probably have my property confiscated by some postal official and be myself imprisoned as a writer of obscene' literature." As it is, he looks upon the incident-which, he admits, will not hurt either his reputation or his pocket-as "only a symptom of what is really a moral horror both in America and elsewhere, and that is the secret and intense resolve of the petty domesticity of the world to tolerate no criticism and suffer no invasion." I have honor and humanity on my side, wit in my head, skill in my hand, and a higher life for my aim," Mr. Shaw assures us. Then:

"Let those who put me on their restricted lists so that they may read me themselves while keeping their children in the dark, acknowledge their allies, state their qualifications, and avow their aims, if they dare.

"I hope the New York press will, in common humanity to those who will now for the first time hasten to procure my books and witness the performances of my plays under the impression that they are Alsatian, warn them that nothing but the most extreme tedium and discomfort of conscience can be got by thoughtless people from my sermons, whether on the stage or in the library." After expressing regret that the insult implied by the action of the library authorities should to some extent reflect on Richard Mansfield, Arnold Daly, Robert Loraine, and the many artists who as members of their companies have been associated with my plays in America," Mr. Shaw closes his letter with an admission and a promise:

"I do not say that my books and plays can not do harm to weak or dishonest people. They can, and probably do. But if the American character can not stand that fire even at the earliest age at which it is readable or intelligible, there is no future for America.

"Finally, I can promise the Comstockers that, startling as' Man and Superman' may appear to them, it is the merest Sunday-school

6

"We really must take issue with Mr. Shaw, however much or little in earnest he may be, when he, Londonly or Britannically, draws an indictment against this hemisphere, and arraigns America' as a provincial place' (place' is good from a Briton), 'a second-rate country-town civilization, after all.' Good heavens! Is hypocrisy an American invention? Is Mrs. Grundy, is Podsnap, is the British Matron an American character? Is not his own island, or at least the island of his adoption, the home and birthplace of that prurient prudery' which he exists to castigate when it does not take on his own particular phase? It is true that we have a W. C. T. U., to which Greek statues are anathema;

but has not Great Britain such sisterhoods and yet more abundantly? If our W. C. T. U. has managed to suppress the army canteen in the interest of drunkenness and vice, has not the British analogue of that organization procured the repeal of the Contagious-diseases Act? Let Mr. Shaw go to. His remarks, altho dedicated particularly' to the American public, are evidently calculated for the meridian of London, and to be taken as read in those club windows by the light of which all his writings have been composed and must be construed."

Copyright, 1903, by "Collier's Weekly."

SARGENT'S PORTRAIT OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

"A very pronounced man this Roosevelt," said the Springfield Republican at the time this picture was published, "and Sargent has not admitted into the portrait a trace of that divining insight of his which is so apt to make his subject betray his or her weaknesses and defects.".

interesting question as to whether the great portrait-painters make it a conscious aim to portray the psychology of their sitters, or whether they concern themselves only with the external aspects, leaving the psychology to those who shall look at the picture. There is a tendency, he says, to ascribe to such painters a power to see below the surface, to form a definite conception of the character of their sitters, and to confer that conception in some way to their canvas and to make us see it. To none of them, we read,

has this power been more often credited than to Sargent, and stories are told of how "this or that trait has been brought out in some picture of his which, tho latent in the sitter, was unknown to the sitter's friends." On the strength of such stories, and of the impression of lifelikeness which his portraits make, Sargent has even been called a psychologist. In Sargent's case, Mr. Cox believes, the term is misapplied. An artist, he points out, may have an instinct for what is most characteristic in a face, and accent those things in it which are essentially individual, without necessarily having any clear conception of the individuality itself. Sargent is to be ranked with the observers, "with the realists, in a He possesses, moreover, "the magic of the hand," the power of drawing which "has always been the possession of the great portrait-painters as distinguished from the imaginative painters." But according to a story related by Mr. Cox, Sargent himself repudiates any special power of "insight." We read:

sense.

He had painted a portrait in which he was thought to have brought out the inner nature of his sitter, and to have seen through the veil' of the external man. When asked about it, he is said to have expressed some annoyance at the idea, and to have remarked: If there were a veil, I should paint the vel; I can paint only what I see." Whether he said it or not, I am inclined to think this sentence expresses the truth. Sargent, like other artists, paints his impression, and he paints it more directly and frankly than many, with less brooding and less search for subtleties-paints it strongly and without reservation; and he leaves the psychology to those who shall look at the picture. His affair is with shapes and external aspects, not with the meaning of them; and because he has an extraordinary organization for seeing these aspects truly and rendering them powerfully, with that slight touch of exaggeration which makes them more vivid to us than nature, and with those eliminations of the non-essential which are the necessity of art, we who look on can read more from the painted face than from the real one, and credit him with having written all that we have read.

"One need not deny that there have been artists who have done something more or something other than this-men of a different type from Sargent, more attentive, more submissive, fuller of a tremulous sympathy, more ready to sink their own personality in that of the sitter-who have given a more intimate life to their portraits than he does. Sargent is always himself -John Sargent, painter-quite cool and in the full possession of his powers, with the most wonderful eye and hand for receiving and recording impressions of the look of things that are now to be found in the world. The masters with whom it is inevitable that he should be compared are Hals and Velasquez; and if it must be left to posterity to say how nearly he has equaled them, we can be sure, even now, that his work is more like theirs than any other that has been produced in the past century."

Poetry as a Universal Bond.-The best poetry, asserts Mr. G. M. Trevelyan, a writer in The Independent Review (London), unites those whom all other writing divides. It is "the common ground of all creeds and of all parties; a body of Scripture, almost a religion, common to those who, tho not of one opinion in everything, seek some method by which to approach one another on subjects of deepest feeling and importance." Mr. Trevelyan claims that "liberal spirits and pious souls" would have greater difficulty in understanding each other, were it not for Wordsworth and Shelley," and the emotions to which they give the most perfect expression." If their poems, and those of Coleridge and Keats, he confidently avers, were at all widely understood and loved, "we should find among men more of those several qualities which it is the highest function of religion and of liberalism to engender." To quote further:

"For this reason, and for many others besides, there is truth in the old saying about the songs and the laws; yes, the songs of the people would indeed be more important than their laws-if only they learned the songs and lived by them, as they learn and observe the laws! But how little is this condition fulfilled, even among us English, who perhaps have produced the greatest body of poetry of any race that ever saw the sun. Of how much real

A. PHIMISTER PROCTOR SKETCHING IN THE LION HOUSE OF THE BRONX "zoo."

account is this heritage of ours in the spiritual life even of our educated class? But there is also another and potentially a vaster sphere of influence for our poets, in America, where, for thousands of years to come, innumerable millions will be brought up to speak our common tongue. Let it be our prayer that many thousands of them, generation after generation, be endowed with the qualities of mind and spirit necessary to make Shelley, Wordsworth, and Keats more to them than names learned in the school. May we citizens of the new industrial world, on both sides of the Atlantic, still preserve the poetic soul, that priceless legacy bequeathed us by the dying past, and may we not suffer unconscious assimilation to the machinery which it is our just pride to command, our subtle danger to obey; then will these poets exert over us and our remote descendants the same enormous and enduring influence that Virgil and Dante exerted over old Europe."

THE

THE WILD ANIMAL IN ART.

HE vogue of the wild animal in American art, as in American literature, is practically a growth of the last decade. "One day, about a dozen years ago," says Bertha H. Smith, "the wild animal woke up, yawned, stretched his toes, and found himself famous." Prior to this event "there could not have been found in America enough paintings of wild animals to fill the prongs of an elk antler." In explanation of this earlier neglect of available artistic material we are told that American taste in art has been cast in the French mold, and the French are not animal-lovers -notwithstanding so conspicu

MR. WILL H. DRAKE.

"The pioneer among the animal illustrators of the new school."

CHARLES R. KNIGHT PAINTING A PORTRAIT OF SULTAN IN THE BRONX "ZOO."

grassy slopes of private lawns and public parks. American artists did not paint and model wild animals, because no one seemed to want them. People bought Madonnas, good and bad, and questionable plaster Venuses, fat little Cupids dancing skirtless skirt-dances in azure skies, bold bronze warriors, carrots and cabbages on deal tables, and marble busts of Cleopatra and Shakespeare, but not elephants, lions, and moose. Edward Kemeys, of

ous exceptions as Rosa Bonheur, a few notable animal pieces by Gérôme, and the work of three sculptors, Barye, Frémiet, and Gardet. In Germany, continues the writer, the wild animal has always had a prominent place, but German influence on American art has never been marked, and "few in America have even heard the name of Friese, perhaps the greatest of all animal-painters, or of a half-score more of notable German animal men." In England Landseer, Briton Riviere, John Swan, and Arthur Wardell had become known as painters of animals. But the state of things in America as described by Miss Smith in the New York Outlook was as follows:

"Now and then, in exhibitions, one came upon a Landseer or Rosa-Bonheur elk or a Briton-Riviere lion, before which people. paused a moment, read the signature, and walked on. In sculpture there was nothing wilder than a Texas pony or an Indian in war-bonnet, unless we pass as sculpture sundry stone lions couchant guarding city doorways, or the stucco fawns standing stark on

Washington, with whose animal bronzes in the Corcoran Art-gallery and groups on public buildings and in Fairmount and Central parks many are familiar, was about the only artist of the old school in America who ventured to do animal work before the wild animal came into popular favor."

MR. ELI HARVEY.

His animal sculpture is a well-known feature of all the large exhibitions.

Kipling's "Jungle Books" and Seton's "Wild Animals I Have Known," says the writer, practically created the interest which gave the animal artists their opportunity. Among painters whose reputations rest upon this particular field of art we have now Will H. Drake, Charles R. Knight, Carl Rungius, J. M. Gleeson, and Charles Livingstone Bull. Four of our sculptors, A. Phimister Proctor, Eli Harvey, Frederick G. R. Roth, and Anna Vaughn Hyatt, "have won a distinct place by their animal work alone." Miss Hyatt, we are told, has the distinction of being the one American sculptor who has never made any but animal studies. It is curious to learn that Knight, who Miss Smith describes as

ican animal-painter," has painted almost every animal but a horse. We read that" to him a horse, with its smooth hair, docked tail, and cropped mane, always immaculate, has no more character than a piano." There is a difference of opinion among these artists, the writer tells us, as to the necessity of seeing wild animals in their haunts to know them well enough to paint and model them : "Mr. Proctor, who was

MISS ANNA VAUGHN HYATT.

The one American sculptor who has never made any but animal studies.