trial disabilities? On socialism Mr. Gary's thinking is even more rudimentary. For half a century political economists and writers of all schools have explained in words of one syllable the fundamental principles of this movement, so that to-day the grocer's clerk, who is even less of a socialist than is Mr. Gary, has some inkling of its significance, and knows at leas that it is not a proposal "to divide up." Yet listen to Mr. Gary's summary. "No man of means," he says, "would be willing to divide his property with any man who happens to have nothing. That would be socialism."
THE most discouraging part of Judge Gary's long interview on unemployment, which, it should be added, does contain a number of excellent practical suggestions, is the inconspicuous paragraph dealing with trade unions. Mr. Gary dilates upon the mutual confidence which he believes is growing up between employers and workmen, and praises "the employers of the United States" who "are spending millions annually in efforts to improve the conditions of their employees." But all of this is the quite consciously utilized as an argument against trade unions. "One of the results of this better feeling," says Judge Gary, "is the steadily decreasing necessity for the maintenance by either side of the organizations designed to protect tit from unfair treatment on the part of the other." We wonder if even so acute a mind as Judge Gary understands all the implications of such a sentence What it means is that a workman who honestly and justly believes that he should have higher wages or a shorter work-day or anything else which means a fuller life for him, should appeal not to his fellow workmen, who have the same ideals and the same desires, but to his employer, a man who lives on quite a different scale and who is the very person who must pay out of his own pocket for the better conditions which the workers demand. Does Mr. Gary believe that the wage-earners of this country can trust their whole claim in life to men who may have a financial interest in denying that claim? And if, by sheer power of capital, wage-earners are compelled so to accept terms dictated by employers, benevolent or otherwise, does Mr. Gary believe that such a situation will long be tolerated by an enlightened community.
A SIGNIFICANTLY apologetic attitude determined the program of the meeting of the National Popular Governmental League in Washington. Its president, Senator Owen, discoursed not upon the successes and conquests of direct government, but on the nation-wide attack on its measures. One whole session was devoted to a consideration of the question, "What is the matter with the direct primary?" to which the answer might be given by some sceptic that the great difficulty with the direct primary is the direct primary. Another session was occupied by the far more serious question of how the progressives of all parties can "get together" for the control of the government. The discussion was, of course, carried on by progressive statesmen who had always conspicuously failed to "get together" for the control of the government or for any other supposed political benefit. Indeed, how can you expect progressives to "get together" for such an empty purpose as the control of the government? If they did do so, they would be merely following in the footsteps of the old parties. Republicans and Democrats organize for the control of the government rather than the promotion of a policy, but sincere progressives must always be more vitally interested in the accomplishment of political and social purposes than in the sanctity of partisan bonds. If they are to "get together," their fruitful association must be born of a common impulse, a common program and a common zeal for its realization. What progressives need is to take thought. They will never control the government until they know better how they want to use the control.
ON January first and second of the new year some two hundred teachers of national prominence assembled in New York and organized the "Association of University Professors." Perhaps the most significant act of the new association was to exclude the presidents of colleges and universities from membership in the association. Inasmuch as college presidents are usually promoted professors and figure to the innocent laity as specially distinguished scholars and leaders of thought, the decision of the association to exclude them seems to need some explanation. The reason for this exclusion derives from the very purpose of the new association. To the majority of professors the president figures primarily as the business head of the university—as an educational administrator. Admitting freely the generally cordial relation existing between presidents and faculties, the association decided that the collective purposes and judgments of college and university professors could not obtain free and positive expression unless presidents were excluded. Deans and other officers of administration who do not give a considerable amount of instruction were also generally held to be personae non gratae. Thus the work of the association will be to express the interests and ideals of the fraternity of teaching-scholars. In the course of time it will doubtless formulate a code of professional ethics, which will define both their rights and their duties, and which will state clearly and emphatically the scope
