ALICE DURYEA, THE HEROINE OF THE NEAR EAST RELIEF'S PHOTOPLAY, "ALICE IN HUNGERLAND" (Alice is herself a striking example of what American relief organizations are accomplishing in Armenia)

But even with all of this, the facilities are woefully inadequate. For every child inside an orphanage there is at least one outside, without shelter or food or friends. There are thousands of adult refugees whom it is impossible for the Near East Relief, with its limited funds, to help at all. For the saving of the children must come first. In nearly all of the centers, the industrial work, which promised so much, has had to be discontinued for lack of room, lack of materials, and lack of skilled workers to carry it on. Education is being given up reluctantly, but of necessity, in many of the larger orphanages. And worst of all, dozens and even hundreds of

children are being turned away every day to wander the streets, hungry and halfnaked.

"All this," says Mr. Vickery, general secretary of the organization, "was in August, when the danger from cold and exposure was at a minimum. Even then the toll of deaths was twenty or more in one city alone each day. What it must be now that the snow is on the ground can only be imagined."

Another element in this distressing situation throughout the Near East was brought to the fore by Captain Paxton Hibben, recently returned from an investigation of conditions both in Russia and Transcaucasia.

"We are bending every energy to remodel the world on a little higher level than before the war," he said. "But we are permitting millions of children throughout the famine regions of the Near East to grow up with

A LUNCH TABLE OVER A MILE LONG

"PLEASE TAKE ME IN!"

the terrible complexes of moral disintegration that are created by hunger and the sight of hunger all about them. There must somehow be found for them the element of kindliness and brotherhood to be brought into their lives at an age when impressions mold the future of the man or woman."

The problem of the Pacific is ended. The constructive thought of America is free to turn elsewhere in the task of regenerating the world after the war. There is no spot in the world which needs this regenerating influence more than the Near East, and no agency of mercy and rehabilitation better prepared to conduct such a work than the Near East Relief. It is a worthy cause and should have the support of America.

corresponds to the dominant political instinct of all the British democracies, both that in Great Britain and those in the dominions.

"THE DAILY NEWS"

The news from America could not be better. When Germany and Russia are included in some such common agreement, we may almost begin to believe that in spite of poison gas and indemnities and anti-Bolshevist crusades and Silesian controversies there is hope for civilization yet. At least we shall have proved that we are not all mad all the time.

"THE DAILY MAIL"

World friendship stands to be greatly strengthened by the Washington four-handed pact of powers concerned in the Pacific and the disappearance of our own treaty with Japan, which has increasingly obstructed a complete understanding with the United States.

"THE DAILY TELEGRAPH"

There was made at Washington on Saturday an announcement which, like the news of the Irish agreement, sent round the world a thrill of joy and hope, confirming the general sense that a new spirit has come into the ordering of the world's affairs and that its deadliest difficulties are not beyond the solvent power of clearsighted and practical idealism. The agreement between the United States, Great Britain, France, and Japan in regard to their interests in the Pacific is a solid foundation of peace in a region to which the prophets of disaster have pointed as the destined theater of another fearful clash of armaments. Our alliance with Japan, which even more seriously than the Irish question blocked the way to real understanding and diplomatic accord between the two great divisions of the Englishspeaking peoples, has passed out of existence upon the only terms which Japan could regard as satisfactory and we could feel to be honorable. By this achievement alone President Harding's Administration has justified to the full the bold and magnanimous stroke of statesmanship which amazed the world six months ago.

"THE MORNING POST"

Article II of the new treaty, which meets any "aggressive action of any power," is a much surer guarantee against any breach of world peace than all the debates, edicts and machinery of Geneva. In a word, the proceedings at Washington show that after the turmoil of war and the distorted imaginings which its horrors awoke in the minds of well-intentioned but hysterical men, the world is at last returning to common sense, and the way of common sense is the way of peace. We are sure that his country, remembering the many services of his great career, is convinced that at Washington Mr. Balfour has reached the highest pitch of unselfish patriotism and supreme statesmanship.

"THE WESTMINSTER GAZETTE"

The automatic expiration of the Anglo-Japanese treaty when the four-power pact about the Pacific is formally ratified is the ideal solution of a problem which would have had to be faced sooner or later and the Washington conference has achieved few better strokes of diplomacy. Its

one weakness is that it does not guarantee the integrity of China and there are reservations to be considered with regard to the United States and Japan concerning Yap, but it will be better to get a settlement on that question before the treaty is ratified than to leave over any possible sources of friction.

With the Anglo-Japanese Alliance out of the way England will occupy a stronger position as an honest broker in any dispute between America and Japan, and Anglo-American relations should be immeasurably happier and Anglo-Japanese relations no worse. We have emerged from a nightmare of misunderstanding about secret motives by these two ten-year agreements, and President Harding has earned well of the world by the success of his initiative.

American Opinion

The newspapers of the United States, with tew exceptions (notably the Hearst papers), voiced hearty approval of the Treaty. The Times, Herald and Tribune, of New York City, strongly endorse the Treaty, as might be expected of papers favoring the Administration, but the World, which was the chief organ of the Wilson Administration and led the fight in behalf of the League of Nations, is quite as enthusiastic for the Four-Power Agreement as are any of its contemporaries. Practically all the Republican papers from Boston to San Francisco and many of their Democratic contemporaries north and south have only commendation for the form and purpose of the Treaty.

The New York World has only praise for the agreement as "a treaty to keep the peace rather than a treaty to insure coöperation in making war." The World at the same time

thinks that the moral obligation implied in Article II of the Treaty should be frankly admitted. The United States, Great Britain, Japan and France agree to respect one another's rights in the Pacific and will try to reach a common understanding as to what they will do in the event that some other country seeks to violate these rights. This, says the World, is the price that we pay for the abandonment of the Anglo-Japanese

Alliance, which many Americans regarded as inimical to the United States.

It is not a heavy price. In all probability the American people will never know that they paid it, for it is hardly conceivable that during the ten years in which this treaty runs, anybody will venture to challenge the rights in the Pacific of the four great powers that have made the treaty. It will not cost us a dollar or a soldier or a ship, and it will have added immeasurably to our security and our self-respect.

N concluding a survey of the first phase

Statesman (London) speaks with enthusiasm of future possibilities in this field. The promise of the Conference, it says, is illimitable:

It has already shown that international problems may be dealt with by new methods and in a new spirit-in brief, that international coöperation is not a hopelessly remote ideal. The Lord Chancellor suggested in an address delivered to the Aldwych Club that "from the point of view of historical perspective this was perhaps the greatest moment in the history of the world." Who will dare to say that that is the language of exaggeration? There are occasions when the pessimist and the cynic are the most foolish and deceived of men, and we believe that the present is such an occasion. We were inclined ourselves as our readers know-to be pessimistic about the Conference before it opened, but when it opened something happened, and the day of its opening became at once and obviously a land

mark in history. It has proved to be a conference of a kind that has never taken place before. It may still achieve little that is immediately measurable, but it has opened a new vista. It holds the promise of a new League of Nations that might be really a league of nations instead of merely a league of some nations, and that would not be handicapped by association with any such transient instrument as the Treaty of Versailles. No such league is yet in prospect as a definite and permanent piece of organization; that will come later, perhaps much later; but its beginnings may be discerned.

As a matter for immediate decision, however, the New Statesman earnestly suggests that the Washington Conference, irrespective of what it may actually achieve, before it breaks up, should arrange for another meeting, preferably in Washington. On this point the editor says:

We are not whole-hearted admirers of the New World, but in this matter of the reorganization of international relations the New World has overwhelming advantages. It has no traditions and no commitments, and it has an atmosphere which tends to neutralize the evil traditions of the Old World. Things can be said and done in Washington which would be impossible in Paris and very difficult in London. We ought to send our statesmen, and especially our Foreign Secretaries, on a pilgrimage to Washington every year, until they have learned how to sweep away the cobwebs of European diplomacy. Then, but not till then, will it be possible to hold a successful Conference of the World on this side of the Atlantic. The question is, will America thus extend her hospitality, and, above all, will she recognize that conferences of the "Allied and Associated Powers" can never achieve what might be achieved by greater and therefore more authoritative gatherings? We must meet again, but Germany and Russia must not be left out. The larger the conference the less chance the wreckers will have. No doubt the world has to move slowly in these matters, but a beginning has been made, and there are real grounds for believing that it will lead eventually to very much greater things than the organizers of the present Conference can reasonably have hoped for.

N his inaugural address as president of

the University of Illinois on December 1, Dr. David Kinley dwelt on the relations of the national and State governments in the domain of education. He made a vigorous plea for the independence of the States, and especially of the State universities, and showed that the increasing intervention of the Federal Government in State educational matters is not without its dangers.

In outlining his ideas of the proper activities of the national government in the field of education President Kinley said:

If federal aid is to be given the States for education or research, it should be on the principle of the first federal grants for the Land Grant colleges and of the second Morrill Act. That is to say, appropriation should be made direct to the States, to be distributed by their legislatures, and to these should be left the mode of distribution. For the public schools that mode should ordinarily be the public school distributive funds already established in the different States, or which could be established. There should be no more of the practice of the wealthy private donor of giving a dollar, provided it is matched by another.

Federal statutes on education should not undertake to determine for the States the subject matter of school curriculums, at any rate beyond those commonly accepted curriculums which are regarded as the warp and woof of a general education for citizenship in a democratic republic like our own. Assignments of money for special

university are due to the interest of the people of the State, but President Kinley is free to admit that the federal appropriations under the Agricultural College Act have been an incentive to the students to make their College of Agriculture, and other departments of the university, worthy of that great State. As to future relations with the federal government, President Kinley says:

It is one of the glories of the State of Illinois that it has made its university free. Its trustees are the direct representatives of the people and are free to go back to the people at any time for instructions and support. The representatives of the people in the legislature loyally support their

institution. One of the wonders of our history is that the State legislature has always been so generous and so ready. We are held to strict accountability, of course, and we are glad to be so held. But in the discharge of the duties entrusted to us no institution could be freer from political control. We desire to maintain this relation, both with reference to the State government and to the federal government. We would welcome further federal support of public education and would welcome closer relations between a federal department and the university itself. But that federal relationship should leave as much freedom and give as much generous moral support to the university as the legislature of the State itself does and always has done. Any federal intervention in education which does not do this for the higher institutions of learning and for the public schools will not, in the long run, promote education of the kind that we need in a country like ours. It may develop a mechanical, uniform system of education throughout the States, dictated from a central source. But it can never give that freedom of teaching and research necessary to the highest success. It can never furnish that variety of curricula and methods of administration required by the varying conditions of life in the different States and the continuance of which is necessary if we are to have that variety in unity and unity in variety which in all departments of American life is the very essence of Americanism.

kinds of education should be made by the State authorities, presumably the legislatures. If there is a class of people widely distributed among the States who need education of a special kind, it would be proper to earmark a certain proportion of the appropriation to the State for that purpose. Such a purpose would be education for Americanization of adult immigrants. eral concern, especially so far as it involves appropriations, should be primarily with the public school system as ordinarily understood.

Fed

As an example of the success of the original federal policy of an assignment of funds direct to the State to be appropriated by the State Legislature, President Kinley cites his own institution, the University of Illinois, a State university, including a Land Grant college. The greatness and strength of this

The most important question of internal administration before the American people to-day is whether or not this onward sweep of federal control over the details of their local affairs shall go on. The part of that question which we are considering to-day is whether it is advisable to permit it to include our education. Shall we accept the doctrine that we are destined to become a great continental democracy, governed in