in general, and Europe in particular, if Germany won the war. This is a profound conviction, grudgingly given, after our experience in the Ruhr valley. Unless the French evacuate the Ruhr, war is inevitable. Take that warning."

British policy, as revealed in the Baldwin speech, wins high praise from such representative American dailies as the New York Herald, New York Journal of Commerce, Detroit News, Richmond Times-Dispatch, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and Louisville Courier-Journal. It seems to the Louisville Post that Great Britain is "cooler and saner" than France. For the present, observes the El Paso Times, "because she can not dominate the emotional reactions of her allies and make her friends accept her economic creed, France defiantly follows a policy destined to end in her perilous isolation."

Three days after Mr. Baldwin spoke in the House of Commons the French Premier made an address at Senlis, the nearest point to Paris reached by the Germans during the war. While it was later given out from Paris that the speech was not an official reply to the British Prime Minister, our editors agree in considering it an authoritative exposition of the French view-point for world-consumption. M. Poincaré said in part: "We are accused of not treating Germany well, but has not Germany been so well treated during three years that she has been allowed to get out of all her obligations while we have had to pay ourselves 100,000,000,000 francs which Germany owed? Has not she been allowed to rebuild her commercial fleets. develop her canals and railroads, and to enrich her industries at the expense of her creditors?

"Equal firmness on the part of all the Allies would have overcome this persistent bad faith. But Germany has speculated upon divergence of views among us which she has striven to increase. She thought she was encouraged to resist us, and so we had to take action.

"It was not our fault that we had to act alone with Belgium. If all had acted together, the chances are Germany would have yielded immediately. In place of paying what she owed, Germany has devoted herself to resistance, which our friends

Ray Evan

1914

encouraged. Are we, then, responsible for the difficulties which result?"

After this speech, says Le Matin (Paris), "Mr. Baldwin and Lord Curzon know two things"

"The first is that we will not evacuate the Ruhr without being paid. The second is that we will not consent to the replacement of the Reparations Commission by a committee of international financiers who represent, in M. Poincaré's words, a coalition of interests opposed to ours."

The Journal Des Débats holds that any economic conference would "have the sole effect of prolonging the resistance of Germany," while another Paris journal, Le Temps, contends that it is the attitude of England which has encouraged Germany to resist France. André Tardieu, who is not a political supporter of Premier Poincaré, in a New York World article, thus puts the French case in a nutshell:

"What is the use of anybody pretending not to know that all France wants is to compel Germany to pay her just debts? Since 1920 we have been trying this. Now we are in the Ruhr to collect, and all the notes in the world will not make that fact any clearer."

Moreover, France is anxious to pay her debts to America and England as soon as she is released from the heavy burden of reparations, says a Paris financial dispatch to the New York Times.

And France has its stanch supporters among American editors. "With his hold on the Ruhr and his reavowed intention of staying there as long and only as long as reparations remained unpaid," Premier Poincaré seems to the Newark News to be "nearest a workable solution for the reparations tangle." The South Bend Tribune hopes "France sticks to its rifles and bayonets." The Troy Record thinks the British Government ought "to cease its temporizing with Germany and get squarely back of France in the latter's demand for payment from Germany." The Rochester Post Express-in one of the last editorials written before the paper was purchased by Mr. Hearst -argues that "British policy is swayed by greedy, unpatriotic

British business interests, which have forgotten France's need for reparations." And the following question is asked by the Pittsburgh Post: "If France withdraws from the Ruhr, what have her former allies to offer as an alternative plan for collecting the war debt?"

.THE MINNESOTA POLITICAL TWISTER

THE TIRED AND EFFETE BLOOD of the United States Senate, Eastern and Western editors remark, will be rejuvenated by the advent into that body of another "son of the soil," a "real dirt farmer"-one Magnus Johnson, Farmer-Laborite Senator-elect from Minnesota, whose election over Governor Preus, Republican candidate, is hailed as the most sensational and significant political development since the elections of 1922. Several explanations of why it happened are given by Minnesota editors, from Minneapolis to Duluth, but the chief reason, in the words of the Minneapolis Journal (Ind. Rep.), is that the election of Mr. Johnson "is an act of protest inspired primarily by dissatisfaction with economic conditions."

There is more significance in the election of Johnson than is generally supposed, we are told by the Minneapolis Tribune (Rep.). In the first place, Minnesota already has sent one of her Farmer-Laborite sons to the Senate, Dr. Shipstead having beaten Senator Kellogg at the last election. Now comes Mr. Johnson to swell the independent or "radical" bloc headed by Senator La Follette, of Wisconsin. Moreover, declares the Minneapolis Minnesota Leader, official organ of the Non-partizan League, "the election of Johnson will make it possible for the Farmer-Labor party to capture control of the whole State Government in Minnesota in 1924." Papers of various political complexions even hint that it may be the beginning of a third party-a Labor party. At any rate, exults the Minneapolis Minnesota Star, a labor daily, "the embattled farmers and labor

"The Republican candidate was rejected, chiefly in the belief that neither he nor his party could or would restore the pre-war relation of prices. But Governor Preus was handicapped by other considerations. He had failed to handle the situation arising out of Senator Nelson's death with sound judgment. And finally he became a candidate for the succession without resigning the Governorship. This tenacity of office struck a good many voters as poor sportsmanship. On the other hand, Magnus Johnson succeeded in uniting the farmer and labor vote, despite his personal unfitness for the Senatorshipor perhaps because of it. But this fact did not weigh against the horest desire of the farmer to kick something. He was tired. He charged purely economic conditions to the party in power. It would have been the same had the Democratic party been in power."

ers of Minnesota have fired a shot that will be heard around the world."

The new Senator-elect from Minnesota was supported in his race against the Republican Governor by a "flying squadron" of Congressmen from Wisconsin, directed by Senator La Follette from Battle Creek; by Samuel Gompers and the American Federation of Labor; and by railroad labor organizations in Minnesota. The correspondents of Eastern dailies also report that the vast majority of the Democrats, noting the hopelessness of their cause, threw their votes to Johnson at the last moment. A serious split in the Republican party a few days before the election also put trained speakers at the disposal of Johnson and thousands of votes in his column, say Minnesota dispatches. For the second time within a year the rock-ribbed Republican State is placed in the Farmer-Laborite ranks. The "dirt farmer" in the July 16 election carried the city of St. Paul, and lost Minneapolis by only a slight margin. This was his platform:

"Unified government control of railroads with immediate reduction of freight rates.

"Johnson's election means that the farmers are protesting blindly, no doubt, and haphazardly, against the economic muddle into which they have been drawn of late years," thinks the independent Rochester (Minn.) Bulletin, and the Minneapolis Tribune (Rep.) agrees that

"Magnus Johnson is the political expression of every economie grievance in the State. He is not politically powerful nor economically wise, but to the voter in these times these facts mean less than nothing.

"It is indeed a far cry from Knute Nelson to Magnus Johnson, but after all nothing to despair about. Senator Johnson has certain spectacular deficiencies; but he is by no means without abilities. He is not the rubber-stamp type of radical, and we suspect Senator La Follette will have to reason with him instead of giving him orders. No ingenuity of consolation can dodge the fact that he is not fitted for the Senate. But he will hardly be the first man to sit there without fitness, and he certainly won't be the last."

"Dollar wheat" was no small factor in the election, notes The

Minnesota Leader. Furthermore, in the opinion of this Nonpartizan League paper:

"Bad judgment of Governor Preus in many things alienated many of his followers. He acted as if he were Governor of a rock-ribbed Republican State like Vermont rather than of a State surging with progressive ideas. Voting for Johnson was the only way by which the people of Minnesota could tell the far-off East that they were in bad shape and needed more consideration."

The independent St. Paul News does not believe that "the chastisement administered to the Republican party through the defeat of Governor Preus will end here. In fact, shrewd political guessers foresee in the election of Johnson the possible elevation of Senator La Follette to the Presidency." As the Duluth News-Tribune (Rep.) explains the defeat of Preus:

"In the first place, political parties are little more than labels these days. The party organization has virtually ceased to exist. Our municipal, county, and legislative officers are elected without party designation, and representatives of the party, duly elected at caucuses, no longer meet in convention to consider party policies and platforms. Republicans are no nearer cohesive organization than red-haired men or blond women. Anybody can be a Republican by calling himself one, just as any woman can be a blond."

We find very few of his home State papers in despair over the election of Johnson. As the Red Wing (Minn.) Republican (Rep.) views the result:

"Magnus Johnson, during the brief tenure of Senator Nelson's unexpired term, is neither going to run the State or the country to perdition. He will neither do much good or harm, except that he will follow the lead of his political patron saint, Senator La Follette. That, of course, may be a serious matter if La Follette holds the balance of power in the Senate. Nor will the people who elected him be slow in retracing their steps back to political sanity when convinced they have been mistaken. They will soon realize that they traced causes to wrong sources, and the great redeeming virtue of Minnesota citizenship is to correct mistakes when seen and understood. Our faith in Minnesota does not waver, and we are not unnecessarily worried by the election of Senator Johnson."

STRANGE STICKS IN THE BAG!

-Harding in the Brooklyn Eagle.

That Senator La Follette will hold the balance of power in the Senate, as the Red Wing paper suggests, is admitted by practically every Washington political observer. "The victory of Johnson clinches the grip of the Wisconsin Senator," declares Angus McSween, Washington correspondent of the Philadelphia North American (Prog.) and W. W. Jermane, another experienced political writer, says in the independent Seattle Times.:

"North Dakota now has two Non-partisan League Senators; Minnesota will now have two Farmer-Labor Senators; and there is a radical in the Senate from Iowa, a near-radical from Nebraska, and a Democrat from Michigan.

"One South Dakota Senator is allied with the radical movement, and the other one, altho inclined to conservatism, is compelled to support radical measures. One Kansas Senator is the leader of the farm bloc. La Follette is at the head and front of this new movement in politics, and unless the Democrats nominate Henry Ford for the Presidency, he may himself be an independent Presidential candidate, with an appeal that would prevent most of the States I have named from giving Republican majorities."

In the opinion of the independent Kansas City Star, "the plain warning to the Harding Administration in the Minnesota election is that the issues in which the people of this country are interested are domestic, and not foreign. Moreover, the farmers of Minneota are dissatisfied with the Fordney-McCumber tariff law, says a St. Paul dispatch from a Chicago Tribune (Rep.) correspondent. We read on:

"The Farmer-Labor party is founded on the economic distress of the farmer since the war.

"The farmers are hard up. A large proportion of them are unable to make both ends meet. A farm without a mortgage is rare in the northern section of Minnesota, and thousands of farmers have defaulted on their interest for the last five years. The farmer who is able to stave off foreclosure considers himself lucky. Farm labor is scarce. Wages are still high.

"From such conditions of distress the Farmer-Labor party has arisen as did the Greenback and Populist parties in the generation following the economic dislocations of the Civil War. "Then cheap money was the popular demand; now it is government manipulation of the price of wheat and other farm products upward."

"The election of Johnson has sent the Labor party idea booming ahead," maintains the Socialist New York Call, which also reminds us that "this is the first time that urban and rural workers have won the two Senate seats of one State." But

"Johnson himself is not important. He may rise to the expectations of his supporters, or he may disappoint them. The significance of the election lies in the fact that the FarmerLabor forces have beaten the two parties of capitalism, and thus shown the workers of other States the way to the acquirement of power for their own benefit.

'Whatever may be the outcome of this independent movement in Minnesota, it has possibilities and a potential power that may, if intelligently directed, make for a political revolution in this country. Linked up with the Labor parties formed and forming in other States, and allied with some of the powerful labor unions of the country, also taking in the national FarmerLabor party and the Socialist party, we may have the beginning of an independent party of the workers modeled after the British Labor party in organization and program."

But "a third party," observes the Boston Post (Ind. Dem.), "would require a machine, a money chest, and a candidate for President." However

"La Follette could furnish the first requirement, tho his machine has never shown much capacity outside the State of Wisconsin, and when the other two requirements are mentioned, one thinks immediately of Henry Ford, foremost antagonist of the farmer's greatest bugaboo, Wall Street."

Well-known independent papers such as the Washington Star and Springfield Republican admit the possibility of a thirdparty movement in next year's Presidential campaign, now that

TURKEY

Johnson has been elected. But Mr. Johnson's platform draws broadsides from the New York Evening Post (Ind.), Chicago Tribune (Rep.), Duluth NewsTribune (Rep.), Philadelphia Public Ledger (Ind.), and others. The Washington Post (Ind.) does not regard the election of Johnson "as either a disaster or a blessing." It believes, in fact, that "the importance of his election has been absurdly exaggerated." Continues The Post, an experienced political observer:

N

OIL AND GLORY AT LAUSANNE

O CUBIT IS ADDED to the diplomatic stature of the Powers by their conduct of negotiations at the Lausanne Conference, it is tartly remarked by some journals which sneer at the long-drawn-out negotiations that ended in a treaty between the Allies and the Nationalist Turks. As the New York Herald sees it, Nationalist Turkey "has whatever glory there was to be gained at Lausanne, but the Powers have the oil." On the other hand, many newspapers hail the outcome of the Conference as "an American victory" because of the fight this Government made to preserve the open door in Turkey. An Associated Press correspondent at Lausanne describes the last days of the Conference as tense with "a silent battle between the United States and Great Britain over oil concessions." From the American view-point, the most notable conclusion of the Conference, according to the Brooklyn Eagle, is the decision to

ALLIES'

DIPLOMACY

keep confirmation of the Turkish Petroleum Company's concession out of the Treaty, and this daily tells us that

"This represents a clear diplomatic victory for Secretary Hughes, whose insistence upon equality of economic opportunity in the Near East was announced as a fundamental American policy when the Conference first met in November last. Mr. Joseph Grew, our Minister at Berne, deserves generous commendation for his achieve

ment.

"The Turkish Petroleum Company's concession to the oil fields of Bagdad and Mosul rested upon a very flimsy basis. It was contained in a letter from the Grand Vizier to Baron von Wangenheim, German Ambassador at Constantinople, dated June 28, 1914, and simply stated that the Ministry of Finance had consented in principle to the concession of the Mosul and Bagdad fields to the socalled Turkish Petroleum Company. The concession was drafted at London, but never ratified. Fifty per cent. of the company was owned by the British Government, otherwise the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

"If Senator-elect Johnson will come to Washington, as many radicals have come, bristling with defiance at what they apprehend will be a stealthy and deadly foe-if he follows the course of precedent in his development-he will gradually evolve into a dependable and able Senator, or will soon drop out as an incompetent. In either event time will attend to his case, as it does to all incoming legislators. And the Government at Washington will go on."

At any rate, "politics will be more interesting in the next year and a half than before in a generation," predicts the Boston Herald (Ind. Rep.). According to this paper:

"The whole situation is a maze of complications and uncertainties. We doubt if there has ever been a time since the opening of the Civil War when it was so difficult to get some line on the probable course of events.

"Much may happen in a twelvemonth, but from all present appearances it will be exceedingly difficult to reelect the Harding and Coolidge ticket next year.

"We do not know how the Republicans are likely to treat the La Follette faction in the coming Congress. If they admit La Follette to their caucuses, they must give him the committee chairmanships, which, on the law of seniority, come his way, even tho in the performance of his duties he becomes a troublemaker. We, however, should advise the Republican party in both Senate and House to read the La Follette group out of the party. Let us go down in defeat if necessary, but go down with our flag flying."

"Great Britain has now consented to exclude this concession from the Treaty of Peace and to that extent Mr. Hughes has made his point. The question remains whether Mosul is in Turkey proper or in Irak under British mandate. What conclusion has been reached on that point we are not informed. The fact that Ishmet Pasha has refused to recognize any claim to these rich oil-fields is an indication that Turkey is prepared to insist upon its conception of national rights, which in this instance happened to coincide with a matter of high principle enunciated by Mr. Hughes. The open door in the Near East can not yet be considered a reality, but we have at least removed a few bolts."

This matter of the open door, however, is by no means the only important result of a gathering which, to quote the New York Times, "seemed to have every prospect of becoming a permanent institution." In fact, for the last two months hardly a week has gone by that the papers have not announced some new and startling development in the Conference. Certain facts, however, stand out with particular clarity, even tho it may be a little too early to see them in the proper perspective.

"One of the most serious dangers to the happiness of the continent has been removed by the liquidation of the state of war in the Near East, and by the agreement of Turkey and Greece to lay down their arms at last." This opinion, voiced from Lausanne by an Associated Press correspondent recently, is said to rep

resent the current view-point of the diplomats there. Turkey emerges from the Conference decidedly triumphant, as the same correspondent points out:

"European troops will evacuate Turkish soil and Turkey, with her new type of government, will be free to fashion her destiny unfettered by European domination.

"Peace! Peace! Tell it to the whole world!'

These were the words of the Turkish leader to the newspaper men as he emerged jubilant from the conference hall after a session that extended well into the night.

"Turkey won a succession of victories throughout the Conference, and by the Lausanne Treaty will achieve two results worthy of an important place in European history. In the first place, in one sweep she obtains abolition of capitulations, a step which it took Japan long years to accomplish. In the second place, Turkey, by her reentry into Eastern Thrace, back into Europe."

comes

This question of "capitulations," thinks the New York Times, "is of greatest interest to the American people, next

to the ending of the war in the Near East," and the following explanation is given:

"By a treaty antedating the war, Americans in Turkey were subject only to the jurisdiction of American consular courts and were thus given the same privileged positions as other foreigners in that country. The presumption is that by rejecting the capitulations at the Lausanne Conference Turkey repudiates her previous treaty conceding them. To such a unilateral termination of a treaty our State Department has been strongly opposed. What to do about it now may well be a puzzling question, for there is no reason why Turkey, having virtually achieved a diplomatic triumph over the European nations, should make especial concessions to America. This will seem all the more probable when it is realized that her dreams of enlisting American capital have been gently dissipated by the march of events, and she now sees nothing to gain from the United States by yielding to us privileges which have been denied to others."

Copyrighted, 1923, by the Chicago Tribune"'

As a result of the Conference, it is pointed out by the press, the Turk is back in Europe, at a pivotal point, and European politics will once more have to consider him. As the New York Herald puts it:

"Thus closes one chapter in the astounding history of the Turks. Less than five years ago their hold on Europe appeared to have been broken. The Ottoman Empire seemed ripe for distribution among the Powers. To-day, because of jealousy among the Allies, the Turk is again able to defy the world.

"What will happen to the Armenians and Greeks under Turkish sovereignty is now a purely humanitarian question whose answer depends upon the Angora Government. Ismet Pasha made no binding promises, but suggested mercy. None of the nations represented at Lausanne was in a position to demand more, for none was willing to attempt to coerce the Turkish Government."

While later negotiations may modify this result, the main impression created on our press is that henceforth Americans in Turkey will probably have to conduct their business and live their lives subject to Turkish law.

The Conference itself, with its dramatic ups and downs, has brought into prominence several interesting figures-Lord Curzon, Sir Horace Rumbold, Joseph C. Grew, and others. But through it all, a figure more and more completely dominating has been Ismet Pasha, of whom Associated Press dispatches tell us:

"Ismet Pasha has proved himself perhaps a greater diplomat than general, for by the Near Eastern peace which was arranged in principle between the Allied and Turkish representatives in the early hours of this morning, he achieved signal victories for his country, entitling him to high honors from the Angora Assembly.

"Ismet never relinquished his grasp on the delicate situation that often confronted the Conference. He was better than the brilliant Lord Curzon in the first stage of the negotiations, and kept all the skilled diplomats guessing from the start. He smiled always, but seldom yielded."

The principal reason for this is found by many American papers in the undignified race for concessions. This, together with uncertainty concerning the status of the old Ottoman debt, has been the principal complicating factor, in the opinion of The Herald, which continues:

"All of the larger Powers, including the United States and Japan, have been striving to assure, for their nationals at least, an even opportunity in the development of the resources of Turkey. Joseph G. Grew, American Minister to Switzerland, has been especially insistent that no discrimination be practised against the citizens of the United States in the contracts now under scrutiny.

"As matters now stand the Turkish Petroleum Company, the Vickers-Armstrong Company-both accounted British -and the French General Railroad Exploitation Company have certain rights, but they have failed to exclude others from the field. Other concessions, notably that held by the Chester group, exist, and an approach toward the open door has been made. Turkey seems to have reserved a measure of freedom to seek financial aid from any country which may offer the best terms.

"The conflict between the American and British representatives over the opportunity to exploit Turkish oil was merely a continuance of a debate carried on by Secretary of State Hughes and the British Foreign Office since 1920. This is essentially business rivalry, and it has manifested itself in Australasia and Mexico as well as in the United States."

It is doubtless the contemplation of this situation that led the New York Journal of Commerce to observe:

"The public will be relieved when the curtain finally drops on this gathering at Lausanne. For too long it has served as an example of all that an international conference ought not to be. For too long the public has witnessed the sacrifice of all human and humanitarian questions to expediency.

"No forecast can be made as to how the treaty will work. Those who have faith in the Turk expect satisfactory results in spite of concessions, while those of different opinion foresee trouble and nothing else as a result of the sacrifice of foreign supervision and foreign control. Only the future can tell. It is reported that Turkey will shortly become a member of the League of Nations and that through this medium the rest of the civilized world (with certain exceptions) will be able to influence her policies. Perhaps this will be the case-and, unfortunately, perhaps it will not."