profits, our new machinery for foreign trade, banking and investment - what are these but so many guarantees of success to the business man of intelligence, vision, daring? Can it be that in face of such advantages American business men, like children clinging to their mother's skirts for fear of hobgoblins and ghosts, will still run to their government, crying for individual aid against imaginary dangers? And can it be if they are so foolish, that American statesmen will listen to their babblings?

Whatever dangers may threaten European states, they do not threaten America. No one in his senses suspects Germany of a policy of "peaceful economic penetration" of the United States, relentlessly pursued by selling us goods cheap, as preliminary to armed attack on a good customer. Nor does anyone imagine that Great Britain buys and sells in our market in pursuance of a hypocritical design some day to annex us to the British Empire. Geographically aloof from the dynastic and militaristic struggles of the old world, rich beyond the dream of any European state, beneficiary of a system of liberty whose blessings we as yet but half appreciate, economically, politically and socially the spoiled darling of the gods, the United States can afford not to be afraid nay, Americans cannot afford to be cowards. In their own interest, and in that of the world at large, they must be true to that ideal of individual liberty and international fair dealing for which we believe we stand.

In the coming crisis of world politics, the United States ought to champion the broadest liberalism of commercial policy. It is vain to establish a league of peace unless the foundations are to be laid in the solid masonry of mutual respect and commercial fair dealing. Anything less will sooner or later issue in international hatred. Let the United States, as seems to be too likely the case, now join in the cry for commercial "defense," "retaliation," all the other notions of commercial war in peace, and we may well see the whole world join lustily in singing the

hymn of hate, each nation against each. On the other hand, let the United States, guided by reason and not by emotion, hold itself steadfast on the path of liberalism on which we are happily entered, and the defenders of economic sanity in Great Britain will be heartened against the forces of unreason and hatred that now beset them so sore. If the structure of British free trade can be saved, the allies' economic combine as an engine for keeping alive national animosity will be all but powerless. British free trade in the past has given the lie to German imperialistic claims of commercial strangulation as her justification for waging war. British adherence to that policy in the future will strengthen the forces in Germany that are working for her liberalization. The liberalizing of Germany is an essential condition of world peace in the future. No mere internal question is involved in our proposed subscription to the hymn of hate, no mere matter of markets, no simple problem of dollars and cents; but our decision may well influence the whole future of international affairs.

If America can be big enough, brave enough, idealistic enough to believe that the coöperative basis of international relations indicated by economic fact is more important than the competitive one indicated by political hatreds, we may play a large part in saving much from the wreck that Europe threatens to make of western civilization.

But it may well be not merely western civilization that is at stake. From every advanced western country there flows out a stream of capital toward the less developed lands. Behind the railroad builder and the mining concessionaire in the past has marched the grim figure of the soldier. Investment has been but the preliminary to political interference and military aggression: for Europe has proceeded on the theory that economic and political power should be used to strengthen each other in international dealings. That theory is already threatening

to bring Europe some day into armed conflict with the hundreds of millions of the East.

It has remained for America to show a more excellent way. Mexico testifies to an American belief that American capital invested abroad assumes the same risks in those lands as native capital, that the rights of American capital abroad are not superior to the rights of the peoples concerned to work out their own salvation if they can. And the situation in China shows that such a policy is a real business asset, because America is not suspected of any ulterior political end. American capital is eagerly sought in China, while European and Japanese capital is accepted only under stress of necessity. Present American investment policy is idealistic, gloriously impractical and it is already in process of demonstrating its success, as witness the concession for a thousand miles of American-built railways in China. Only let our trade policy be established and maintained on the same high basis of reciprocal advantages, resting on mutual economic service and not on political pressure, let us turn our backs on the fears and hatreds that Europe is nourishing to-day, let us believe that the future lies with those peoples who coöperate most wisely in external economic relations at the same time that they order their internal social affairs most intelligently, and America may yet help the world take some steps toward decent international relations, as she has already helped it realize some new possibilities of developing order and liberty together over a continental area among a myriad of differing peoples. We must dare, and again dare, and forever dare.

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THE

THEATER?

HAT something is the matter with the theatrical business in the United States is only too apparent. It is true that there are more and more American plays which mirror with superficial accuracy interesting aspects of American life. It is true also that in every season judicious playgoers may enjoy an uncertain number of satisfactory performances. It is true furthermore that there is no dearth of good acting, both skilful and sincere. It is true finally that our newer theaters are sumptuous and comfortable and safe. But it is true none the less that the theatrical business, always precarious, has been descending for several successive years into the slough of despond. Every fall dozens and even scores of companies set out from New York with high hopes for the winter, only to return before Christmas, closed up at the customary two weeks' notice. Even in the more important cities, theaters are "dark" for weeks at a time, or eke out the lean season by opening their doors to vaudeville or moving pictures.

The splendid New Theater built by the millionaires of New York, was kept up by them for only two seasons; and after two more years of drama and two years of opera, it was turned into a variety-show, with a performance adroitly adjusted to the supposed tastes of the supposed Tired Business Man.

And the moving-picture managers are constantly annexing other playhouses built for the regular drama; the latest of these theaters to surrender is the Knickerbocker in New York, the house wherein the Irving-Terry company played, the Coquelin-Hading company and a host of other leading attractions, native and foreign. Equally significant is the withdrawal of a manager as capable and as resourceful as Mr. Daniel Frohman from

the field of production, to devote his energy and his skill to the making of moving-pictures.

These are the fatal facts; and no one familiar with all the circumstances can deny that the theatrical business as a business, as a money-making proposition, is in a parlous

state.

Now, as Artemus Ward used to put it, why is this thus? What has brought about this unprofitable state of affairs? What are the reasons for this lamentable condition?

The explanations most often heard are two. The first is that times have been hard for half-a-dozen years, and that the theatrical business has suffered just as almost every other business has suffered, no more and no less. The second is that the sudden and startling and stupendous expansion of the moving-picture industry has exposed the regular theaters to a cut-price competition, the full effects of which may not yet be evident.

These reasons are both of them valid; they are good as far as they go. There is no doubt that ever since the panic of 1907 financial conditions have been unsatisfactory; capital has been suspicious; trade has been curtailed. But although general business has not been good for several years, it has been slowly getting better, whereas the theatrical business has been steadily getting worse. And the fierce rivalry of the movies has incontestably aggravated the uncertainty of the theatrical situation. When a family is trying to economize, it is likely to weigh very cautiously the prospective pleasure of an evening at the movies for twenty-five cents a head, and an evening in a regular theater in seats that cost two dollars each. Probably this is a competition which the theater will always hereafter have to contend with, even if the immediate and excessive vogue of the moving-picture should wane after a season or two. Furthermore it must be said that the regular theaters almost invited the competition of the movies by their uniform scale of prices.