ably makes the renewal of the AngloJapanese alliance unnecessary, and brings disarmament much nearer realization. Jiji, a liberal organ, advocates unreserved acceptance. Yomiuri welcomes disarmament, partly on the ground that Japan cannot keep up the present rate of competition; but it fears that the inclusion of China may spell failure. Nichi-Nichi, which we have quoted above as advocating an AngloJapanese alliance against the United States, believes President Harding's proposal comes just in time. Its editor is pleasantly surprised because the invitation was wholly unexpected -- 'a bolt out of a clear sky.' Tokyo Asahi, while it believes that world-federation is the ultimate ideal, considers that the open door in the Far East calls logically for the open door on the opposite side of the Pacific. The Osaka paper of the same name, and under the same management, fears that China's presence at the Conference will simply revive the ill-feeling between that country and Japan which characterized the Paris Conference. Hochi emphasizes Japan's special interests in China, which, it says, are analogous to the interests of the United States in South America, and believes that this should be properly explained and urged at the Conference. In general, the Japanese press devotes itself mainly to the China issue, -apparently overlooking Yap,-much as the French press emphasizes the possibility of reviving the project of an Anglo-French-American guaranty treaty against Germany. JINGOES vs. JINGOES UNDER this title, the Herald of Asia, a Japanese liberal weekly, quotes several paragraphs from an article by President Eliot, in the New York Times of August 22, 1920, describing the belligerent attitude toward Japan exhibited by American army and navy officers stationed in the Far East, which it pairs with a summary of a recent book by Lieutenant-General Kotaro Sato, entitled If Japan and America Fought. This book has recently been translated into English. Though General Sato protests that he is not a jingo, he is so confident that war with the United States is inevitable that he thinks Japan should lose no time in trying conclusions with our country. He is fully aware that the odds are against Japan so far as resources of men and materials are concerned; but he argues that Japan has won all its big foreign wars over powers whose material and human resources were far superior to her own. He is sure that Japan's 'national spirit' will give her the victory. The plan of campaign he recommends is purely negative-defensive strategy, letting America wear herself out futilely beating against the gates of Japan's island fortress. He also expects our government to be paralyzed by internal dissensions, starting among our numerous foreign nationalities. Dr. Yujaro Miyake, a forceful and popular Japanese editor, writing also upon relations between America and Japan, charges us with attempting to put Japan in the unpopular position recently held by Germany — as the typical aggressive militarist nation. He asserts that the Japanese do not understand why Americans should thus antagonize Japan, and believes it must be due to our gross misconceptions of her people. He recognizes and deplores the futility of the meaningless compliments which well-intentioned men in both countries constantly interchange, in the hope of bettering the relations between their governments. These kindly futilities do not clarify the atmosphere. So he would accomplish that by a different device. 'Let there be an exchange, not of professors or such like polite and dif fident people, but of real agitators, and others who are not afraid of speaking out their mind. The outcome of the scheme may not be as propitious as we should like; but it will not be without the advantage of each side hearing what has never before been even suspected of the other.' This scholarly journalist evidently believes that such a frank avowal of real aims and objects would show up America as the truly aggressive and expansionist nation. 'Let American agitators and apologists explain these things candidly and honestly, and then the rest of mankind will know what attitude to take in the future. . . . Let there be an association or meeting of chauvinist orators and sensational alarmists, and America and Japan will be wiser for what may ensue.' 'TALK DOLLARS' GENERAL CORDONNIER, formerly commander of the French Army in the Orient, recently contributed a series of articles to La Démocratie Nouvelle, under the title, Parlons Dollars. His argument is, in substance, as follows: Great Britain uses in her business pounds sterling, which are not pounds sterling; Italians use lire, which are not lire; the Germans are employing marks, which have a purchasing power about equivalent to our five-sous pieces; Russian rubles are mere scraps of paper; and Austrian crowns are worth little more; our franc on Monday is often quite a different thing from our franc the Saturday before. When our Minister of Reconstruction juggles with his figures before the Chamber of Deputies, he dazzles his hearers, but does not convince them. Another minister ascends the tribune immediately afterward, and gives us other figures to represent the same thing. A third cabinet officer follows, with his particular and distinct version of the same affair. All this is merely throwing dust in the eyes of the public a kind of mathematical acrobatics. It is making Germany's debt to us an unsubstantial thing, which may contract to the vanishing-point. When we compute it in francs, one day's total is different from that of the day following. Never in our history, perhaps, was it so unintelligible jargon talked by our financiers necessary to have a dictionary as now. The could be equaled only if our architects and engineers were to draw their plans and spec ifications in scales of a metre that varied in length erratically from day to day. Imagine a group of mechanics trying to erect a madhouse structure with such specifications. We need a standard monetary unit of measure in our financial computations as much as we need a standard metre in our engineering operations. Now, the dollar is the only monetary unit that has remained reasonably stable throughout the war. What America has spent with one hand, she has collected with the other; so to-day the paper dollar and the gold dollar are one and the same. If we wish to measure the effect of our constant borrowing and inflation upon our economic and financial situation, upon our national income, upon the war profits of our corporations, upon our future, we must use the only fixed standard of money which survives that is the dollar. If they talked dollars, our Minister of Reconstruction, our Minister of Finance, and their colleagues, as well as the public, could discuss these questions intelligently and reach reliable conclusions. We should be able to review what we have done in the past, appraise the situation that exists at present, and conjecture what is likely to occur hereafter. ably makes the renewal of the AngloJapanese alliance unnecessary, and brings disarmament much nearer realization. Jiji, a liberal organ, advocates unreserved acceptance. Yomiuri welcomes disarmament, partly on the ground that Japan cannot keep up the present rate of competition; but it fears that the inclusion of China may spell failure. Nichi-Nichi, which we have quoted above as advocating an AngloJapanese alliance against the United States, believes President Harding's proposal comes just in time. Its editor is pleasantly surprised because the invitation was wholly unexpected -- 'a bolt out of a clear sky.' Tokyo Asahi, while it believes that world-federation is the ultimate ideal, considers that the open door in the Far East calls logically for the open door on the opposite side of the Pacific. The Osaka paper of the same name, and under the same management, fears that China's presence at the Conference will simply revive the ill-feeling between that country and Japan which characterized the Paris Conference. Hochi emphasizes Japan's special interests in China, which, it says, are analogous to the interests of the United States in South America, and believes that this should be properly explained and urged at the Conference. In general, the Japanese press devotes itself mainly to the China issue, -apparently overlooking Yap,-much as the French press emphasizes the possibility of reviving the project of an Anglo-French-American guaranty treaty against Germany. JINGOES vs. JINGOES UNDER this title, the Herald of Asia, a Japanese liberal weekly, quotes several paragraphs from an article by President Eliot, in the New York Times of August 22, 1920, describing the belligerent attitude toward Japan exhibited by American army and navy officers stationed in the Far East, which it pairs with a summary of a recent book by Lieutenant-General Kotaro Sato, entitled If Japan and America Fought. This book has recently been translated into English. Though General Sato protests that he is not a jingo, he is so confident that war with the United States is inevitable that he thinks Japan should lose no time in trying conclusions with our country. He is fully aware that the odds are against Japan so far as resources of men and materials are concerned; but he argues that Japan has won all its big foreign wars over powers whose material and human resources were far superior to her own. He is sure that Japan's 'national spirit' will give her the victory. The plan of campaign he recommends is purely negative-defensive strategy, letting America wear herself out futilely beating against the gates of Japan's island fortress. He also expects our government to be paralyzed by internal dissensions, starting among our numerous foreign nationalities. Dr. Yujaro Miyake, a forceful and popular Japanese editor, writing also upon relations between America and Japan, charges us with attempting to put Japan in the unpopular position recently held by Germany - as the typical aggressive militarist nation. He asserts that the Japanese do not understand why Americans should thus antagonize Japan, and believes it must be due to our gross misconceptions of her people. He recognizes and deplores the futility of the meaningless compliments which well-intentioned men in both countries constantly interchange, in the hope of bettering the relations between their governments. These kindly futilities do not clarify the atmosphere. So he would accomplish that by a different device. 'Let there be an exchange, not of professors or such like polite and dif fident people, but of real agitators, and others who are not afraid of speaking out their mind. The outcome of the scheme may not be as propitious as we should like; but it will not be without the advantage of each side hearing what has never before been even suspected of the other.' This scholarly journalist evidently believes that such a frank avowal of real aims and objects would show up America as the truly aggressive and expansionist nation. 'Let American agitators and apologists explain these things candidly and honestly, and then the rest of mankind will know what attitude to take in the future. . . . Let there be an association or meeting of chauvinist orators and sensational alarmists, and America and Japan will be wiser for what may ensue.' 'TALK DOLLARS ’ GENERAL CORDONNIER, formerly commander of the French Army in the Orient, recently contributed a series of articles to La Démocratie Nouvelle, under the title, Parlons Dollars. His argument is, in substance, as follows: Great Britain uses in her business pounds sterling, which are not pounds sterling; Italians use lire, which are not lire; the Germans are employing marks, which have a purchasing power about equivalent to our five-sous pieces; Russian rubles are mere scraps of paper; and Austrian crowns are worth little more; our franc on Monday is often quite a different thing from our franc the Saturday before. When our Minister of Reconstruction juggles with his figures before the Chamber of Deputies, he dazzles his hearers, but does not convince them. Another minister ascends the tribune immediately afterward, and gives us other figures to represent the same thing. A third cabinet officer follows, with his particular and distinct version of the same affair. All this is merely throwing dust in the eyes of the public a kind of mathematical acrobatics. It is making Germany's debt to us an unsubstantial thing, which may contract to the vanishing-point. When we compute it in francs, one day's total is different from that of the day following. Never in our history, perhaps, was it so unintelligible jargon talked by our financiers necessary to have a dictionary as now. The could be equaled only if our architects and engineers were to draw their plans and spec ifications in scales of a metre that varied in length erratically from day to day. Imagine a group of mechanics trying to erect a madhouse structure with such specifications. We need a standard monetary unit of measure in our financial computations as much as we need a standard metre in our engineering operations. Now, the dollar is the only monetary unit that has remained reasonably stable throughout the war. What America has spent with one hand, she has collected with the other; so to-day the paper dollar and the gold dollar are one and the same. If we wish to measure the effect of our constant borrowing and inflation upon our economic and financial situation, upon our national income, upon the war profits of our corporations, upon our future, we must use the only fixed standard of money which survives that is the dollar. If they talked dollars, our Minister of Reconstruction, our Minister of Finance, and their colleagues, as well as the public, could discuss these questions intelligently and reach reliable conclusions. We should be able to review what we have done in the past, appraise the situation that exists at present, and conjecture what is likely to occur hereafter. libel,' and observes that whatever that teaching may be, it does not follow that Gandhi's adherents will adopt it as a political code. "They are, after all, his personal opinions. They do not constitute in their sum the creed to which the Congress or the Nation must subscribe. The Indian people may reject the "Gandhian Republic" and yet may give a trial to a part of the non-coöperation scheme as a step toward self-government.' Gandhi merely denies that railways, fountain pens, lawyers, and motor-cars are the real tests of civilization. They do not add 'one inch to the moral stature of a nation.' Gandhi does not condemn railways in themselves, but the use to which their selfish masters put them as a means for evil-doing a pace. . . "Force of arms is powerless when matched against the force of love or the soul," says Gandhi. It is a truth found in the scriptures and preached by Christ.' This author summarizes his defense of Gandhi in the following words: What is the rate, the content, and the quantum of progress that India has achieved since the Battle of Plassey? That is perhaps measured by the ever-increasing tide of Indian wealth flowing into Britain. It is measured by the number of machines, mills and factories, railways and steamers, that speed up that perpetual drain. It can be measured by the amount of mass ignorance and illiteracy in the land, by the number of 'necessary evils,' of plague and famines, and the extent of the country they affect; by the amount of drink-traffic and the moral and mental slavery and degradation that prevail. CONSERVATIVES AT LOGGERHEADS IN HUNGARY ONE result of the dissension between Hapsburg supporters and Horthy supporters in the Hungarian Parliament is a general airing of the so-called 'white' atrocities in that country. Representa tive Beniczky, a Hapsburgist leader whom we have recently quoted editorially in the Living Age, recently presented a series of sensational charges against the Horthy administration in Parliament, in which he accused the authorities: 1. Of spreading sensational and unfounded rumors of Communist conspiracies, mainly for the purpose of justifying the extravagant expenses of the forces engaged in their suppression. 2. Of fostering, or tolerating, criminal bands, operating as ostensible guardians of public safety, which were responsible for numerous illegal acts and atrocities. He describes some of these atrocities in detail. For instance, thirtysix prisoners were taken from the lockup in Kecskemet by a detachment commanded by an officer who is mentioned by name, and murdered. It is claimed that the civil authorities are so intimidated by these lawless military groups, and their patrons in high places, that they do not dare to protest against such acts. This sensational speech concluded with the following interpellation: 1. Is the government prepared to provide that the citizens who, without distinction of confession, have been driven from their homes [in communities mentioned, between the Danube and the Theiss] shall be permitted to return to them? Is it prepared to give such persons legal protection and to guarantee that they shall not be assassinated, plundered, or maltreated? 2. Is the government prepared to restore law and order generally in the district between the Danube and the Theiss? Particularly, is it prepared to suppress the constant assassinations, robberies, and extortions committed by the bandit companies which I have mentioned? 3. Still more specifically, is the government prepared to order the immediate arrest of Ivan Hejjas and Ferdinand Pataki, both retired first lieutenants, and of their accomplices [designated by name], and to |