Evening Star Newspaper, December 22, 1929, Page 37

Part 2—-8 Pages e e TARIFF BRINGS UP OLD QUESTIONS ABOUT SENATE Debates in Upper House Revive Talk About Quality of Senators and Value BY MARK SPLLIVAN. E have with us again today, as the saying is, for the thousandth time the old story about the Senate. It arises, this time, out of the delay over the tariff. It has two parts. The first is the compiaint against the Senate rules made familiar by Ambas- ;ldor Dawes when he was Vice Presi- ent. ‘The second is the familiar discussion about the quality of the Senate, whether the Senate today is as able, contains as large a proportion of able men, as it did at some other time. This second topic is perennial, Dur- ing the second session of the Senate, in the 1790s, one supposes there must have been much odious comparison with the first; and ‘then of the third With the second, and so on to this day. By this process, it is a familiar human trait to arrive at a point of view which ‘Wwould assume that the first Senate, or any other group that functioned in the beginning of the Government, was a body of supermen. ‘Tariff Delay Causes Instability. ¥, is true that two complaints can he made about the present Senate in c/nnection with delay on the tariff— or at least one assertion and one com- plaint. It is a fact that the Senate’s delay about the tariff is unfortunate. We are in a period when practically every business leader and business man in America is exerting himself to create and preserve stability. In the midst of this effort the one great uncer- tainty is e the question, ‘what are the tariff rates going to be next year? The justifiable complaint 3s that no one can know what th are going to be. No one can demand that the Senate should pass T;Ickl! one kind of tariff or another, a low tariff or a high tariff; the only justified complaint is that the Senate ought to pass some kind of tariff quickly. Absence of information about what the tariff rates will be next year is the one area of uncertainty —in a scene in which heroic efforts are Demand for Action Called For. It would be hard to dispute, now or at any time during the last six weeks, of Rule.. session, or—what is the same thing— cause delay in the midst of a session. One Senator so can hold up or postpone legislation needed by the country as & lever through which to bring about legislation needed mainly by himself. ‘This has been {llustrated in the Senate within very recent weeks. A proposal was made to take up and ex- pedit> one of the most important items of legislation on the program. is could only be done, under the Senate rules, by unanimous consent. When unanimous consent was asked for one Senator arose and said quite frankly that he would not give his indispens- able consent unless the important bill in question were united with a bill which was mainly in the interest of this one Senator’s home State. Another f{llustration will make the situation clear. There may be a most important bill calling, let us say, for the building of post offices in several .cities, or increasing the pay of Federal district attorneys throughout the coun- try, or increasing the number of Fed- eral judges throughout the country. In suth a situation one Senator can say, in effect, “I will take advantage of the Senate rules to prevent or delay the passage of this legislation until my State is taken care of in the shape of a new post office bullding or an addi- tional Federal official, or what-not.” Practice Leads to Deals. One Senator can do more than that. He can say, in effect, or without saying 80, in words, his attitude can have the effect of saying: “I will delay the tariff bill or I will delay the tax reduction bill until I am assured that I get my post office building or my local Federal official.” (These cases are wholly hypo- thetical; the writer knows of no such u.n;m rn in c&nneefion fi;h the pending or the pending tax re- duction. Such cases have arisen in the past, often.) If a Senator does that, what hap- pens? Some other Senator, who hap- pens to be in charge of th bill, thereupon has a small conference with the recalcitrant Senator in the cloak room. The result, after a good deal of maneuvering, is that the recal- citrant Senator gets the t office or the other local legislation, or local officeholder, that he demands. much legislation being determined by small conferences in the cloak room— and not enough through open discus- sion on the floor of the Senate. . We are barely out of the shadow of what could have been . | each and all of 1907; and persons over 55 will remember 1893. Probably no per- son in the United States under the age of, roughly, 40, knows fully what is meant by a “soup house” or ever saw a line-up in front of one. ‘The conditions and the persons that have averted an economic_calamity by energetic and generous effort are not unreasonable if they criticize the Sen- ate for falling to make the one con- spicuous contribution within the Sen- ate's power—that is, to give to busitiess early information about what the tr.riff Tates are going to be. Dawes Objection Misunderstood. ‘The complaint that Dawes made con- spicuous about the Senate rules was not perfectly understood. Commonly, peo- ple thought Dawes’ criticism was about delay and about filibustering. Dawes did say that the rules and practices of the Senate result in woeful delay. He aaid further that the delay has the ef- Zect of piling up legislation toward the end of the sessior. He then pointed out that with legisiation piled up at the end of the session fillbustering mes easy and probable. But Dawes’ complaint went deeper than this. He said the rules of the Senate result in laws being passed or not g:ud—nut as the result of 96 votes on the Senate floor, but as the result of private negotiations in Senate cloak Tooms. What Dawes meant by this is intri- cate and needs to be made clear. He meant that under the Senate rules one Senator, or & small group of Senators (often literally one Senator), can post- pone, and in many cases by postponing kill, important legislation. Since one Senator has this power, he is likely, frequently, to use the power to his per- sonal advantage. If filibustering and deliberate delay were confined to cases of a.few men holding strong conscien- tious convictions against certain legis- lation—in that case the practice might be partially defended. Filibuster Called a Club. But Dawes pointed out a graver de- fect, a decidedly less justifiable use that one Senator can make of his every subject that o up. earnes sa; ough &m: persons say Quality of Senators Questioned. ‘The merit of this distinction obvi- ously depends in on the quality of 96 men who com- pose the Senate—on whether all of them are, or some are not, men who would not abuse this vilege. . And that brings up the fi r question whether the Senate of today is of as high qual- g' ': the average, as preceding nates. The other defense of the existing rTules of the Senate is an assertion that, in the net, for over a hundred years they have worked to desirable results. ‘The most forcible form of this asser- tion has To say whether that ‘would require a minute examination of just what bills have been “talked to death,” that is, permanently killed by Alibust . That would be an inter- esting investigation for some of those men in colleges who write theses to get advanced degrees. Senators “Feel They Must Talk.” ‘The present delay about the tariff is different from what has been so far described. Some of the delay about winding up the tariff debate has been caused by the hesitancy of some or all the factions to take a final position on the tariff and foreclose the possi- bility of changing their position there- after. They are not quite certain just what kind of tariff would be popular in the country as & whole. Individual Senators know what kind would be popular in their States. But parties as parties, and factions as factions, are less ‘certain about the country as a whole, There is reluctance to take final responsibility for one kind of tariff or another. Another reason for delay about the pending tariff bill is the familiar speech- making one. In the Summer, when the coalition of Progressives and Dem- ocrats began their fight against the tariff, they assigned certain schedules to ce Senators. Each opposition Senator was told to familiarize himself completely with one commodity or schedule and be prepared to make & speech against the tariff on it and de- bate it. As a means of defeating the tariff it was excellent tactics. Now that the original bill is beaten in- the Senate, accumulated speeches dammed back to the minds of indl vidual Senators are a cause of dela] power to fillibuster at the end of the the item about which he has prepared himself. Chemists Tracing Origin of Coal Study Peat and To uncover fresh knowledge of the origin of coal, peat from a bog in Mani- towoc County, Wis,, known as Hawk Island Swamp, is being studied by scientists of the Federal Government. ‘The area is a typical wooded swamp formed by uneven deposits of gravel after the retreat of the last Ice Age. “It §s hoped to discover more defi- nitely what plant substances cen- tributed to coal and what are now their chemical and physical natures,” says a per prepared for the American Chem- Jeal Soclety by Reinharrt, Thiessen and R. C. Johnson, of, the Pittsburgh ex- mml station of the United States u of Mines. “A work of this kind includes the study and consideration of every com- pound and product of all plants. The chemistry of plant substances is re- markably well known. Only one chief and important constituent, lignen, de- fies solution. This is unfortunate, as it is the most important contributor to peat and coal. “The study also involves the chemis- try of decay, the action of fungi, bac- teria, actinomyces, burréwing insects and other lower organisims. During the Jast 10 years much has also been learned of the chemistry of decay. Much, however, is yet to be learned. ‘With these available data the compo- sition of t can in some measure be postulated, yet many questions and problems remain - unanswered. Other Formations “It is generally agreed that coal is of plant origin and was formed in a manner similar to that in which peat is being formed today. A thorough study of peat from its inception to the more mature stages at its greatest depth be- comes essential to the understanding of the constitution of coal and its for- mation. “With this objective a study was un- dertaken of the transformation of plant substances into peat and the compo- sition ot a deposit in profile from top to bottom with respect to its major components, their nature, their changes and their relations. “Peat formation is largely a problem of microblology. The ‘most importan and eliminations during the t formation of &:‘" substances into peat occur while plant substances are still exposed to free access to air. “It has now been satisfactorily proved Hunctoning 1o a5 aepths of the deposr, all depths of the deposit. A large number of innoculations have been made from the top to the bottom of several peat ts and it is rare that cultures are not obtained. 3 their country. And in EDITORIAL SECTION he Sunday Star, WASHINGTON, D. C, SUNDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 22, 1929. HRISTMAS,” said one of the cynics, “is a useless article wrapped up in flimsy pa- 4 per and cheap tinsel and in exchange for a ‘doofunny’ done up in tin foil and cot- ton ribbon. It is a merchants’ holiday; an ogry of extravagance; a day of platitudes; imitation sentiment; a lot of hurry and bustle and nerve strain —and the bill comes in on January 1.” “Christmas! Christmas?” said one of our hard working authors.. “There is nothing more to say about Christ- mas. It has become a commercial feast. It is as highly organized and imper- sonal as the charity organfzations and the Government tax. You know the day you have to pay—and you get ready for it. Christmas spirit is dead and the last Christmas story has been In a highly efiicient age where all our emotions are catalogued and condemned by the psychiatrists, and the psychologists can prove an evil motive behind every good deed, what chance has Santa Claus? There is no more Christmas spirit—no more Christ- mas stories.” We learned about Christmas from a President of the United States and a taxicab driver, from John Erskine and Owen D. Young; from & poet and a priest, from a plous woman and a woman of the world, from a man just out of prison. They were efficient people, but being good at their various Jjobs had not killed their souls. They taught us that Christmas is one of the great common denominators of the human family, that it can touch all peoples alike,” Christian and unbeliever, saint and sinner—it is the one kind thing the scoffers have not been able to laugh into its grave. But it is a day for-action. It calls for deeds. ‘This happened when Calvin Coolidge was President of the United States. It is an old custom of the Coolidges to bring to their board on holidays friends whose cups have been emptied, or who flnh(‘i.l hglll“dlfi'ls cfl 'iormenh el while Calvin Coolidge was President of the United States he took into \‘.h: White House for the holiday . week Senators whose homes had been broken by death. One year they had lost an old friend, a man of no political importance, just an old friend who had gone to war and come- back with -a - broken - body, but enough spirit left to keep him alive through those years when the war was being forgotten. It was near the holi- day time. Many friends were kind. The Coolidges were more; they we understanding. They knew about hol days and broken families. So they vited the widow of their friend to spend & few days in the Whit= House. It would be something new in her life— something to crowd out heartbreak ‘memories. Calvin Coolidge escorted her through the great halls and drawing réoms filled with the portraits of the Nation'’s Presidents—Lincoln, Garfield and Mec- Kinley, who had given their lives to this unspoken gesture, Calvin Coolidge had woven the life of a simple citizen soldier, who also had given his life to this country, into the golden fabrios of the Nation's record. ‘There was no talk of personal !MI'IE, but much was said of this or that his- toric bit in the mansion, and Mrs. Coolidge finally took the soldier’s widow to the south window for the lovely given are being propagated form of I-D"m and shavings, on cellulose and on other lant materials contained in flasks and Boulu with proper nlz]elnl cfil@uu &:— . They are still active after v heen ths. Available seven to_ninef months. mt?:gm is essential for their u%vlua." view of the Washington Monument and recalled the lines of a schoolboy: “From Arlington, where sleep the men who have given their lives for their country, the Washington Monument 'seems a glant spike God might have driven into this earth and said, ‘Here, I stake a claim for the home of liberty’.” long years ahead had been softened by a beautiful memory. So we learned something about the spirit of Christmas from Calvin Cool- idge and his gracious lady. But life cannot be measured by the mountain peaks. Few of us may reach the heights. There is only one White House, only one Calvin Coolidge. But the good that is in him is legion. Our next adventure in our quest for Christmas deeds was with a taxicab. He was just an ordinary sort of a man, a little rougher looking than some and driving a cab not any too clean. On Christmas eve last year we were riding uptown delivering Christmas presents. We had checked off about half our steps when the driver came around io the door and said: “I wonder if you would mind 1f I picked up a barrel of china and strapped it out here? It means goin’ a coupler blocks outter our way, but I'll turn off the clock. A friend of mine wants to surprise his wife tomorrow and I told him I'd keep it in my flat for him. If I go way uptown with you I won't get back in time, maybe, to get the barrel. And I wouldn't disappoint him for the world. I'll get you another taxi, if you mind.” “We will get the barrel,” we said, with a sneaking suspicion that it probably contained another kind of Christmas cheer. We stopped at the back door of a loft bullding. No china shops in sight. Our driver disappeared in a dark delivery doorway and presently came out with another man helping him carry an apparently very heavy, open barrel. Our suspicions. increased. We headed back to a congested and fash- ionable part of town. A reckless young Drawn for The Sunday Star by Marie A. Lawson. Christmas Is Not Dead A Cynical Challenge Accepted and Proofs Given That Old-Time Spirit Reigns holiday driver crashed into us. There were grindings of brakes and a terrific ar. “Hell!” said the taxi man, “I'll bet he broke some of that china.” Gently, and then a little more vigor- ously, the taxl man shook the barrel. ‘There was no rattle of broken china. Gingerly he ran his hand down among the papers and excelsior, With a re- lieved smile he looked up. “Want to see it?” he asked. Yes, we wanted to see that china. ‘We wanted to believe in the goodness of that plain man who had taken us down one of the deserted streets to a back door to load a suspicious looking barrel onto his taxicab. It was a rough, oily hand that drew forth a pink and white china saucer. “It's & wholesale house,” he was ex- plaining, “handles high-class stuff. The sets that ain’t perfect and them that's got some broken or lost, they sell awful cheap to people who works for 'um and folks with some pull.” And then with a toss of his head—"My friend’s got a friend works in there. Sixty-four pieces in this barrel. It ain't a whole set as sets go, but Lord, even with three kids and company, 64 pleces is enough china. I'm glad he got it.” One day in New York we stumbled on a man who had just come out of jail. He came to us with the hang-dog look of a man beaten by life. This was his story. Wrongly convicted on a techni- cality—case in court 18 times—in a State prison nine years. He had been a player of gay music in a dance or- chestra. His clarinet and a saxophone nad beat out a happy sort of rhythm of life. Then came the crash. Arrest, conviction, imprisonment with 2,000 A CHRISTMAS EDITORIAL BY BRUCE BARTON. N front of a Fifth avenue store | saw a man and a little girl. Some object in the win- she stopped The father counting the She looked up eagerly into eyes, tugged at his hand, an esitation ‘vanished. ~ To- gether they crossed the sidewalk and disappeared into the store. I stood for a moment looking after them, and | thought: “There is human history i single scene. ; the foundation of pros- | dow attracted h and pointed at hesitated, obviously it. cost. only with adults, it would quickly stagnate. Adults pause, and fear and figure. The wants of age are few and q isfied. “Childhood w: rything. Childhood knows no ham fears, no fettering economi tugs at our reluctant hands and, to know the a fact that a majority of the financial upsets in America have come in the Fall, In October and November there is gloom. The coming of The terror of lonely holidays for the Spring is given credit for the re- turn of courage and hope. Ac- tually, | think, the recovery begin: It has its start mas time. Shops are filled with Christ- mas goods. Tr trucks and drays are with THINGS TO BE GIVEN AWAY. When men will children the Christmas urge. So business begins to grow better at Christmas time, for every Christmas purcha to start the machinery of and making into el under political economy as well as great religious truth. Men misunderstood Him, and in His smile. It is fitting that His day should be their day. Theirs was the unquestioning loyalty, and theirs was, and is, the enduring wisdom. Only when we have grown very wise indeed do wi understand that life is good cheer, and courage, and joy in the moment—the very stuff out of which is fashioned the soul of each little child. (Copyrisht, 1929.) other men branded as evil doers. Years and years in one of the State's houses of imprisonment. Nine years. A final hearing and release. A clean discharge, a suit of clothes, a bit of money—and the warden’s warning to go straight down the unstraight path of life. What was left after nine years wasn't much to look at. Gaze at bars long enough and you can’t meet the eyes of other men. “Keep step with a prison gang for nine years, then try to walk alone, Get a job, go straight and be a man—with the smoke of hell upon you. He had directed the prison orchestra for which Otto Kahn had given the in- struments. So- he had his hand in a trade he might turn to. But— It costs $50 to join the union in New York anc a good deal more to buy the instruments—and then find a job. There are always more musicians than Jobs. Come out of jail with your spirit broken, something ~gone wrong with your backbone and it's hard to stand up and face the world. Hard to tell the story that is almost certain to be met with a sneer, “Go over to the Juilliard Foundation,” we told him, “and tell your story to Dr. John Erskine. He will probably find a way in his organization to help you.” Resourceful John Erskine—distinguished musician, leader of youth, maker of literature—and, -above all, defender of weak human nature. Later in the day John Erskine came on the phone. “‘The Foundation has no funds for this sort of thing,” he explained. “But I should like to help the man myself. There is only one thing I wanted to stralghten out. He says you offered him money, but he could not take money from a woman—even as a loan. He wants to go on his own.” Poor devil. He wanted to make a good story better. He wanted respect. He would rise nearer to the stature of a man if he could make this real man be- lieve some shred of pride had stayed with him. That was what happened in books—in the kind of books that go into the prison reading. “To proud to take money from a lady.” He might have refused money if we had given him the chance to measure up as a hero. But we hadn't. We hadn't mentioned money. “Sorry,” saild John Erskine. And we dismissed the case. We thought we did, but we began to think about the poor devil and how easy it would have been for him to get tripped up on one little boastful lie. Se wc wrote to the man who had sent him to us and confessed that we did not think that we should sit in judgment on a man who had been punished by life. The answer came back with this in- formation: “It will probably interest you to know that John Erskine gave him the instru- ments after all and got him a job.” A friend asked John Erskine about it. She wanted to know what had changed his mind. And here is the answer: I felt that no matter what the man sald, he was straight—and that consid- ering the injustice he had suffered, we all owed him something. It was time for him to have a Christmas gift.” And then we learned about Christ- mas from a priest. We were in the rectory when a nun came in leading a weeping child. “He is a bad boy, father,” she sald in shocked tones. *He did a sacrilegi- ous thing. Terrible, father! “What did you do?” aske . La- velle. Fifty years and more he been g to the sins of mankind. What could a weeping child have done to dis- turb him? = “What did you do?” he re- Ppeated gently. The child was speechless. “He went into the sanctuary, to the 7 (Continued on Sixth Page.) 4 \Reviews of Books EUROPE THINKS AMERICA WANTS NAVAL EXPANSION Difference of Opinion in U. S. and Abroad Is Held to Show Parity and Reduc- tions Are Incompatible. 3 BY FRANK H. SIMONDS. O_ aspect of the approaching London Conference is at once more surprising and more dis- turbing than the total absence of any clear notion on the part of the general public of the issues involved. lle it is true that the two slogans of “parity” and ‘“reduction” are universally proclaimed, and equally true that the popular expectation is comprehended in the utterly vague word of disarmament, the limits of possibility, expressed in tonnage terms, are rarely appreciated. Actually, of course, any consideration of the questions to be dealt with at Zondon falls naturally into four divi- sions. And these divisions may be described as parity, reduction, limitation and abolition. Moreover, since Presi- dent Hoover has emphatically vetoed any discussion of policies, such for ex- ample of “Freedom of the Seas,” the whole discussion is limited to more or less technical naval terms. Issue Is Narrowed by Time. As to the question of parity, the eight years which have elapsed since the Washington Conference have served to narrow the issue down to a small compass. At Washington the United States, which had prospective supremacy in capital ships, surrendered this ad- vantage without obtaining the formal assurance of a corresponding sacrifice . on the part of the British in respect of cruiser tonnage, where they had actual superiority. As a consequence of this failure at Washington, we have had eight years of agitation provoked by the fact that successive governments in Great Britain, beginning with Labor, have not merely retained but extended this advantage in the cruiser line. During most of this time the United States has vacillated between two conceptions, the one to persuade the British to reduce their cruiser strength to ours, the other to build our cruiser fleet up to theirs. Until the Geneva Conference Mr. Cool- idge held to the former view, after Geneva he abandoned it, and in his Armistice day speech last year and in his indorsement of the fifteen cruiser bill he disc®sed his change in yiew. Brit\-h Opinion Divided. At the nawe time British opinion has also bsén divided. At bottom_ the naval law, shred by many of the Tory leaders, notably Winston Churchill, was that if Grea$ Eritain refused to accept the American claim to parity and de- clined to reduce its own strength, American public opinion would in the end refuse to back Congress in the great expenditures necessary to bring our fleet up to British levels. This view explained the rupture of the Geneva Conference. But after the effect of the Geneva rupture in the United States had been correctly appraised in England, the great majority of the British public concluded that the Churchill view whs mistaken, that America meant to have parity, that it possessed the financial resources adequate to achieve it and th: only question was whether the actual arrival of parity was to be at- tended with bitterness and recrimina- tion or was not to be permitted to dis- turb Anglo-American relations. The Labor government which came to power last Summer received a more or less tacit mandate from the British people to settle the issue of parity with the United States and to settle it in the only way possible, by the substantial recognition of the American claims. Moreover, since the battleship issue had been disposed of at Washington, the issue really came down to cruisers. ‘When Macdonald came to see Hoover the state of facts was this: The Brit- ish program envisaged 70 ships and 400,000 tons. The American, 33 ships and 300,000 tons. In addition, while the British purposed to have 15 Wash- ington conference cruisers, that 1is, 10,000-ton boats, our program envis- aged 23. Meantime, Mr. Hoover had suggested that manifestly not alone the total tonnage of the fleet but the character of the ships must be reck- oned, and had thus brought in the now famous ‘“yardstick” idea. Tentative Agreement Reached. As a result of the Hoover-Macdonald conversations a tentative agreement was reached, the exact terms of which have been announced by the British prime minister in London, but so far withheld in Washington. Great Brit- ain agreed gradually to reduce her cruiser fleet from 70 ships to 50, and her tonnage from 400,000 to 339,000. At the same time she retained her pro- gram of 10,000-ton cruisers, which amounted to 15. The United States, on its part, pro- posed to raise its cruiser program from 300,000 tons to 315,000, but to reduce the number of its 10,000-ton cruisers from 23 to 21. Thus, instead of build- ing two 10,000-ton cruisers, the United Statss undertook to build five of the 7,000-ton type, or more exactly to dis- tribute the 315,000 tons claimed by her in such fashion as she chose, but not in 10,000-ton boats. ‘This Hoover-Macdonald agreement was based upon the notion that while the United States was to have only 36 ships and but 315,000 tons, against 50 and 339,000 for the British, the superior size, gunpower, etc., of the American fleet, resulting from her superiority in the number of 10,000-ton boats mount- ing 8-inch guns, insured parity. So much for parity. But it will be noticed that in arriving at parity, Mr. Hoover’s advisers were obliged to face the fact that it could not be had by reduction. So far from reducing her nited by 15,000 tons, as she was to in- crease the number of her boats from 33 to 36, assuming she put her excess tonnage in 7,000-ton boats. This con- dition resulted from the fact that the British placed the minimum figure of security at 339,000 tons. Thus in point of fact ity is foreshadowed by a double process, the gradual lowering of gl;; oa’rmnd: J;nnu:l lxrom 400,000 to ,000 an equally lual expan- sion of the American !ro‘;l‘dtha 300,000 of the 15 program cruisers to 315,000, the end to be attained in 1936. On balance this does represent a re- duction in world tonnage of 46,000 tons, the difference between the British re- duction and the American expansion. But on the other hand—and the point is important in view of its political im- plications at home and abroad—it does mean a further expansion of American armament. The United States is going to a conference ostensibly called to pro- mote reduction of armaments, commit- ted to a program of expansion of her own. And manifestly this point will be seized upon by the Japanese, the French and the Italians. Tacit Condition Holds. Moreover, even in the case of the . Macdonald-Hoover agreement, there is & more or less tacit condition. While the British have fixed their own needs at 339,000 tons, that estimate is based upon the existing and préposed strength of the other three naval powers—FPrance, Italy and Japan. But if one or more of these powers shall appear at Londan demanding an increased cruiser ton- nage, the British will be compelled automatically to increase their figure in the interests of security and then the United States will have to do likewise in the name of parity. Manifestly, then, the real issue af London is not reduction but limitation, Whatever happens the United States will have to build more cruisers and expand tonnage beyond the limits of the Coolidge programs. But limitation depends upon the arrival of an agree- ment between the British on the one hand and the French and Italians on the other as to some ratio of strength. If, as now seems likely, the Latin powers refuse to accept any ratio, the British can agree with the United States that they will maintain a naval strength equal to the French and Itallan combined and recognize the right of the United States to equal that strength. But then that means an cver variable parity, with the Ameri~ can program always contingent upon the British and the British uj the French and the Italian? o Dangers Are Unmistakable. Given the difficulties of the British situation, which are real, the dangers of misunderstanding are unmistakable, As far as the British government and public are concerned the issue of parity has been settled by the mfl“l accept- ance of the American . Even if the American definition of parity seems inexact, the British are not going to fight about it, even diplomatically. They have washed the United States out as a prospective foe. But British public opinion has mnot reached the stage where it is prepared to accept a reduction of British strength vis-a-vis France and Italy, which seems to endanger British security, merely to satisfy the American demand for both parity and reduction. But on the other hand America can make no case for limitation with the Latin powers, since she has not only outdistanced all the world in her recent building pro- gram, expressed in the fifteen cruiser bill, but is also contemplating a further expansion to reach the Hoover-Mac- donald figures of parity. There remains the question of aboli- tion, which applies exclusively to sub- marines, but since Japan and France have formally declared their purpose to retain these boats, it is a foregone con- clusion that nothing of real importance will be done in this direction. In sum, then, there i1s a very real contradiction between the Americar and European views of American policy. On this side of the Atlantic it is be- Heved that the United States is going to Europe to support the principle of reduction, of effective disarmament. But in Europe America appears as the nation which, in its fifteen cruiser bill, has undertaken the most grandiose of armament programs of Tecent years, and in the Hoover-Macdonald conver- sations even adopted an additional expansion. This paradox between American principles and American policy arises, of course, from the fact that parity and reduction are incompatible. To attain parity the United States last year adopted a construction program of 150,000 tons. The Hoover-Macdonald conversations almost inevitably commit us to an additional 30,000 tons. How can the United States urge re- duction upon France, Italy or even Japan in the face of such an expansion on her own part? ‘Within the area-of the possible, what then is to be expected? Parity pre- cludes reduction in cruiser tonnage. French and Japanese policles exclude submarine diminution. There remains the fleld of battleships and this after all promises to be the central issue. (Copyright, 1929.) “‘Americanism’ is a word we Euro- peans use a lot and which we often use and interpret ill,” writes Arthur Rundt in the Vossiche Zeitung. “This word ‘Americanism’ is a European invention. No American can tell you what it ‘means, excebt if he first asks Europeans about its meaning. “We call certain conceptions ‘Amerl- canism’ because we believe the Ameri- cans have them most strongly of all nations—a cult for anything that is huge; a sober, practical attitude in life; a quiet calm which nothing can stir; optimism, prudishness, a wonder- ful ability to do business and even to bluff, and, finally, a goodly portion of self-assurance, particularly concgrning the 48 States of the Union, which are “ 's own country.” ‘Are all these really characteristics of the American? “They picture the - American rather badly or, at least, only half way. The American character is sketched in its complete form only if one adds just the opposite to all the above qualities. “Do the Americans adore anything that is huge? Are huge figures and superlatives the idols of America? Certainly. But, on the other hand, the irit of saving is being preached as the ideal of the nation, and the old Puritans, whose spirit cannot be ex- “Americanism” Declared Term Misused By Europeans Credited With Invention terminated over there, certainly didn't believe in superlatives. “Are Americans matter of fact and practical? Nowhere else in the world have people invented such fantastic masquerades of stirring effect; the Ku Klux Klan is only one example of the innumerable secret and mysterious clubs and associations which a man gets into from his college age on. We might even write a heavy volume about *The United States, a Nervous Coun- try,” despite the fact that every Ameri- can tries to appear outwardly calm. “Even before the war made America one of the richest nations in the world, every word over there breathed opti- mism—everything s a success, every- thing must be a success; the struggle against an obstacle is only the first step toward success. Yes, optimism is obvious in the United States; but, on the other hand, Americans lack any real understanding for a really pleas- ant sort of life. ““The fanatic love of an American for his home country and his disdain for anything non-American, and especially for old Europe, m! , on the other hand, with a deep longing for the Old ‘World, and this longing is satisfied by 8 sort of migration to Europe every Summer—almost 1 per cent of the en- :ll;; ‘p:epmul:flan 'Dh!B the United Bu::‘lo on European Continent in the Summer.”