Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

preting, the public and university libraries of the city. A bureau of information will constitute a central source of facts concerning the various educational, religious, philanthropic, and social organizations of the city, a valuable counter check to the tendency of a city to scatter as it increases in size. The building will foster a unique club for men and women of divers classes and interests, established to promote a finer public spirit and a better social order, as it phrases its purpose.

But the heart of the building is an idea, the idea of common discussion of common interests, and the home of this idea will be the civic auditorium around which the varied activities of the institution will cluster and from which they will draw their vitality. This auditorium promises to minister through its architecture and finish to that repose and attention upon which sane discussion depends. Semi-classic in conception, it gives a sense of space and quiet dignity of treatment, while soft colors harmonize with the design, a combination displaying consideration of the psychology of attention as well as the art of architecture.

But the justification of bringing a New York venture to the attention of a national audience does not lie in the beauty and utility of this building, but in the idea of which it is a crystallization. In THE CENTURY for July last a plea was made for the setting up of a "parliament of the people" in every American community. It was then pointed out that as a people we lack the machinery and have lost the habit of community discussion; that the soils of policy have been worn thin; that we read in head-lines and think in catchwolds. Here is an attempt to dramatize in brick and mortar this idea of a parliament of the people. At no time in our national history has the need for such a meeting-place of minds been so essential. Public opinion is one of our national gods, but this particular god is just now suffering from pernicious anemia. We are far from having the well-informed and intelligent public opinion that our complicated time requires. Public opinion is zealously doctored by "bigots without a doubt" and

"persecutors without a creed" in this post-war period. Freedom of speech is cowed, and facts are under a strangely effective embargo. Opinion was never so regimented, save in war-time. Freedomloving as our traditions lead us to believe ourselves to be, we permit petty officials to become swash-bucklering czars of public thought and expression, and meekly suffer a paternalism of opinion that smacks suspiciously of Prussianism. The ever-present press

agent has erected his toll-gate between us and the sources of news. Stirrings are heard in editorial circles demanding a return of the reporter to his place, which has been too much preempted by the press agent and propagandist. We must somehow contrive to have the clean and antiseptic air of free discussion blow through the processes of our national thought. A reaction against propagandized news is bound to come before long. Propagandized news is not essentially a sin of editors. We have simply drifted into a situation in which a thousand and one forces, appreciating the importance of public opinion, have organized to see to it that the sources of news tell the "right" story. But it is not enough to trust blindly to the salutary effects of such a reaction. We need to set up again the machinery for public discussion which has become increasingly difficult as we have grown big and complex and busy. The discussion that came about of its own accord in the New England town-meeting or around the stove in the village store must to-day be consciously planned for and intelligently stimulated. In this lies the significance of New York's town hall now in process of construction.

OUR FOREIGN LANGUAGE PRESS MUCH has been said and written about the foreign language newspapers in the United States as an obstacle in the way of the ultimate Americanization of our foreign born population. It is to be regretted that much of this writing and discussion has been carried on in hysterical disregard of the facts. Certain professors and politicians have leaped into cheap prominence by their demand for the immediate and absolute prohi

bition of every newspaper printed in the United States in any other language than English. If this group had its way, the moment an immigrant landed on our shores he would be cut off from the news of the world in general and of the United States in particular until he had learned the English language. It will be some time before we reach anything like efficiency in teaching the English language to our foreign born, and we shall hardly organize and finance a corps of interpreters to keep the immigrants informed in the interim. The time will probably never come when English will be the one language spoken and written in the United States. When immigration once again gets under way, we shall find constant need of a foreign language press, under stricter oversight it is true, in that period between the landing of the immigrant and the time he learns our language. The foreign language press presents a genuine problem for the forces of Americanization, but the solution of the problem does not lie in its wholesale prohibition.

Here, as in so many instances, agitation has fallen into absurdity because the facts in the case have been ignored. It was, therefore, a real service that the New York "Evening Post" rendered recently when, in a long and informative special article it presented a survey of the facts about foreign language newspapers in the United States.

These

facts deserve summarization for a more widely scattered circle of readers. The facts bear out the conclusion that "the foreign language press in the United States has been and still is vitally necessary; for every move it has made on the wrong side it has made ten on the right; it is an essential cog in the wheels of nationalization, and it must be neither disregarded nor suppressed. It has its work to do, and when that work is finished it will cease from being a necessity. Until then let us be sane." Here are the facts.

In 1914 there were five Ukrainian papers, all weeklies, published in this country. There are now ten Ukrainian papers published here. One is a daily and four are tri-weeklies. In the last five years there has been an increase of 470 per cent. in the volume and 700 per

cent. in the circulation of the Ukrainian press in this country. Before the war these Ukrainian papers simply reprinted news from the home country, but now they carry an equal amount of copy on American affairs and world politics.

There was some difficulty with the Scandinavian press in the early part of . 1918, but by the middle of the year things were straightened out, and the press as a whole, including some five foreign language groups, maintained a loyal attitude. This press, since the armistice, has probably carried less material on Americanization than have other sections of the foreign language press, but on the whole the Scandinavian press does not offer a serious problem.

In 1917 there were about 500 German newspapers and periodicals published here. The number has now fallen to about 344. Some ten papers formerly printed in German are now printed in English, and a few printed partly in German and partly in English. Twenty-nine of these 344 papers are dailies, the rest are weeklies, bi-weeklies, tri-weeklies, fortnightlies, or monthlies. The total circulation of German papers and periodicals has not fallen in proportion to the drop in the number of publications. With characteristic Teutonic tenacity, the remaining papers have striven to capture the circulation of the suspended publications, and have in a measure succeeded. There have been indications since the armistice of a revival of the German press. In the event of any fresh imperialistic stirrings in the German fatherland, this section of our foreign language press may well bear watching.

In 1915 there were about 100 CzechoSlovak publications in this country. That number has been somewhat diminished, largely because of stringent measures against the foreign language press passed by certain middle-Western legislatures. Many of the CzechoSlovak papers, thus suspended, were affording our Government its only authoritative medium of communication with those people here. The CzechoSlovak press is now developing rapidly in the direction of part-English issues that will help materially in our Americanization.

The Jugo-Slav press in this country is represented by nine Serbian, eleven Croatian, and thirteen Slovene papers. Seven of these are dailies, twenty-two are weeklies, and four are monthlies. Six of these papers are in New York, fourteen in Chicago, three in Pittsburgh, three in Cleveland, three in San Francisco, two in Calumet, one in Joliet, and one in Milwaukee. Save for two Socialist papers, this press played a thoroughly patriotic rôle during the war, and is now. a helpful factor in the assimilation of our Jugo-Slavs.

[blocks in formation]

terest, anxious to learn what the ballotbox would indicate regarding the scope and virility of radicalism. At this distance from the facts hasty generalization was fruitless and unwise. Time enough has now passed, however, to render perspective possible. Even at this date dogmatism is of doubtful value. The best interpretative service probably lies in a simple summary of the facts, with a listing of such causes as may be set down with practical certainty.

The world breathed a bit easier after the French elections. Broadly speaking, the French elections registered a national verdict against radicalism and set the feet of France in the path of orderly progress. This verdict was of peculiar significance in view of the fact that the elections were carried out under a new voting system, scrutin de liste, that is designed to afford minority views the fullest possible representation, the principle of proportional representation characterizing the new system. There is, of course, a possibility that "gerrymandering" entered into the scheme. Again, the verdict was of peculiar significance because there were virtually no clearly defined issues before the voters save the issue of approval or disapproval of revolutionary socialism. The French Chamber is composed of a medley of parties differing by almost imperceptible shades of principle. The last Chamber was split up into no fewer than ten political groupings: Unified Socialists; Republican Socialists; Radicals; Radical Socialists; the Radical left; the Republican, Radical, and Socialist Union; the Republicans of the left; the Democratic left; the Republican Federation; Liberals with Royalist tendencies; out-and-out Royalists. Normally, this medley of slightly differing groups makes against clear-cut election issues. When, therefore, a national election gives a clearcut result on one issue, as the present issue of revolutionary socialism, the election clearly voices a dominant national opinion. It is true that the various Republican groups took steps before the elections to get together in a Bloc National Républicain to present a solid front against all revolutionary forces and tendencies. But it did not practically work out as an effective com

bination, so the fact remains that the national verdict was essentially a spontaneous expression of the major opinion of France.

In the French elections the Catholic electors threw their weight into the scales against radicalism and in the interest of order. Many prelates issued appeals to the Catholics of France to vote thus. The Cardinal Archbishop of Paris is reported as urging all voters to avoid abstention from the ballot-box as an unpatriotic desertion of duty, and to vote for such candidates as gave promise of an orderly and useful policy, although they might not satisfy the voters in every respect, rather than vote for candidates whose theoretical program might be more desirable, but who would probably fail, and in their failure open the gates to the enemies of religion and the social order.

The Italian elections tell a different story. In France the election rendered a typical middle-class verdict for law and order. In Italy the middle-class seemed virtually inarticulate in the elections. In Italy, as in France, the scrutin de liste system was used in the elections. The new system apparently left the rank and file of Italian voters wool-gathered. The mass of Italian voters have never been a politically minded folk. That is to say, they have never been enthusiastic followers of the intricacies of parliamentary political machinery, despite the fact that they are essentially a democratic people. Never an enthusiastic voter, even under the simpler voting system, the Italian was more apathetic than ever in the last elections, when the new voting system robbed politics of its personal element to no slight degree. Barely fifty per cent. of the 11,115,441 Italian voters appeared at the ballot-box. Only twenty-nine per cent. of the voters of Rome cast a ballot, and only thirty-five per cent. in Naples. In Orlando's constituency only fifteen per cent. voted. The abstention from the ballot-box in Italy was dramatically large. And it is interesting to note that abstention was least in the country districts and most in those centers of culture and education where political thought and interest would be most expected.

Two groups alone won dramatic success at the ballot-box, the Socialists and the Catholics. In the new Italian Chamber the Socialists increased their seats from forty to one hundred and fiftysix; the Catholics increased their seats from thirty to one hundred and one. The Nationalist element, the party of imperialism, received a black eye. This latter fact is interesting, coming as it did just at the time when Italian world politics seemed tarred with imperialism's blackest stick. So we have, at first glance, an Italian Chamber semi-papal, semi-Bolshevik, and anti-imperialistic. How did it come about?

The answer springs from the widespread abstention from the polls. But why this abstention? Some Italians say it was because the Italian masses lack education and have little political consciousness; others say parliamentary government in Italy has gone to pieces; others say that the Italians have been driven into a sulking mood by the manner in which the Allies have denied and blocked their ambitions. The ablest students of the situation seem to think that the Italian politicians have overplayed their hand, and by subtle jugglings of issues and parties have brought Italian politics to a condition of confusion worse confounded, so that the average Italian voter has been brought to a pass where he could not tell which was which among parties and party questions. In short, the Italian voters had become disgusted with party politics and passed the whole affair by. There were doubtless thousands upon thousands of intelligent Italian voters who were as much for law and order and as much anti-revolutionary as were the mass of French voters, but these voters had no clear-cut leadership that they could trust; they faced only a party confusion. So they did not vote. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that abstention from voting was greatest in the most intelligent quarters.

But while all this confusion was on, two groups appeared with definite programs and effective party organizations. These were the Catholic Popular party and the Socialist party. By assiduous work and sedulous advertising they won their victory while the vast middle classes

[ocr errors]

slept, as above noted. These facts indicate that the new Italian Chamber may not at all represent the major opinion of Italy. It may be doubted whether the masses of Italians in the country districts are any more revolutionary than the farmers of the United States. If a verbal inelegance may be pardoned, the Socialists won on a fluke. The middle classes may have learned their lesson from this election and may effect a political house-cleaning and general clarification of parties and party issues that will give the Italian masses clearer leadership in the future. It may well be that parliamentary responsibility will sober the Socialists, a thing that has often happened in parliamentary history when the agitator has become administrator. The Catholic Popular party will certainly not play into radical hands. This party stands in a good trading position in the new Chamber. So it appears that in domestic policy the outlook is not as dark and revolutionary as first reports seemed to indicate. Conservative blocs may be formed in the Chamber. If the Catholics collaborate astutely with the scattered forces of the Chamber, aside from the Socialists, the Catholics may well nigh dominate Italian policy.

In foreign policy the grounds for hope are not so clear. It is not at all impossible that the Catholic leanings toward Austria and away from France may unite with the Radical dislike of bourgeois England and France in the formation of a foreign policy that will ultimately prove anti-French and antiEntente. But prediction is a difficult task in view of the fact that these Italian elections probably fell far short of expressing the real Italy. We may discover that these elections gave no clear verdict upon either Italy's radicalism or Italy's imperialism.

AN AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM

OUR time is marked by the awakening of every class and group of our national life to a greater consciousness of its function and importance. That awakening is producing no end of unsettlement, but it will ultimately mean a more intelligent direction of our common life. A more coherent organization of the

farmers of the United States is bound to come. Farm labor has never been organized in the sense that other labor has been organized. Such organizations as the National Grange are, after all, organizations of employers more than laborers, although the line that divides employers from laborer on the farm is not a sharp line. Farmers have yet to create a National Chamber of Agriculture, as the business men have created the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. Here is a genuine need that challenges the agricultural leadership of the country. When such an organization shall function at maximum efficiency, we shall be obliged to revise this famous paragraph from Ecclesiasticus:

How shall he become wise that holdeth the plow . . . that driveth oxen . . . and whose discourse is of the stock of bulls? He will set his heart upon turning his furrows; and his wakefulness is to give his heifers their fodder. . . . All these put their trust in their hands; and each becometh wise in his own work. Without these shall not a city be inhabited, and men shall not sojourn nor walk up and down therein. But they shall not be sought for in the council of the people, and in the assembly they shall not mount high; they shall not sit in the seat of the judge, and they shall not understand the covenant of judgment; neither shall they declare instruction and judgment, and where parables are they shall not be found. But they will maintain the fabric of the world; and in the handiwork of their craft is their prayer.

As agricultural leadership broadens its vision, and agricultural organization proceeds apace, the farmers will not only maintain the fabric of the world, but will have more and more to say about its pattern.

Mr. Roosevelt well said that "our civilization rests at bottom on the wholesomeness, the attractiveness, and the completeness, as well as the prosperity, of life in the country." The outstanding need to-day is increasing initiative among the leaders of agriculture rather than increasing dependence upon government initiative. There is now an opportunity for a great American to achieve greatness of action in the statesmanship of rural affairs.

But while we are waiting for states

« AnkstesnisTęsti »