F. Lauriston Bullard for the past fifteen years has been connected with the Boston Herald, for the last four as their chief editorial writer. His article opens an Atlantic discussion which we intend shall be pursued forcibly and with vigor. ¶All who enjoy Dickens and Christmas can enjoy them both all over again by reading A. Edward Newton on the ‘Greatest Little Book in the World.’ Mr. Newton’s last volume is Doctor Johnson — A Play, published last spring by the Atlantic Monthly Press. Griffis Marsden, a new Atlantic contributor, is a California woman who whites us to ask why it is that men have it so much on their minds to prove women are not geniuses. No woman ever bothers to write so critically of ‘the manly virtues’! But it is time, she thinks, that a woman did, and tackles the job forthwith.

Through a journalistic career of many years, Bruce Bliven has been gathering the materials for his paper on ‘Changing Journalism.’ Starting on the editorial staff of the San Francisco Bulletin, he later joined the staff of Printers’ Ink, and afterward held on the New York Globe positions as editorial writer, managing editor, and associate editor, leaving that paper when it was bought by Mr. Munsey. ¶Sailors at sea enjoy their Christmas as do other people, and Arthur Mason, an old sailor himself, draws his story of a sea Christmas out of the memories of forty-odd years of sea roving. Archibald MacLeish, for some years a lawyer in Boston, is now a poet in France. His new book of poems will be published in the spring by the Houghton Mifflin Company. Neil Forbes Grant is foreign editor as well as ‘Director of Music, Art, and Drama’ for the Morning Post of London. One might guess he is a Scotsman. Charles Boardman Hawes died on July fifteenth of this year. He was best known for his stories of the sea and of Yankee ships in the China and African trade. Maurice Francis Egan in his Confessions of a Booklover referred to that ‘ gem of excitement and illusion, The Mutineers.’ His last book, The Dark Frigate, was published in October, and at the same time an announcement was made by the Atlantic Monthly Press of ‘The Charles Boardman Hawes Prize of $2000 for the best manuscript of an adventure story of the same general character and excellence as the tales contributed to American literature by the late Charles Boardman Hawes.’

Mrs. Elinore P. Stewart is the Woman Homesteader whose letters in 1913, 1914, and 1915 were well known to Atlantic readers. William Douglas is one of the younger poets, who has found scope for originality in the old verse forms. ¶A teacher of English at Whitman College, Washington, M. D. Penrose broadcasts in this month’s Atlantic a message which will be of interest to teachers everywhere. G. B. Mackenzie is a short-story writer, a Scotsman, and a graduate of Oxford University. He served with the British army during the war, and has lived most of the time since in France. Charlotte Kellogg, wife of Dr. Vernon Kellogg the biologist, tells in this number of the Atlantic some of her early school-teaching experiences in California — still half pioneer — when she like many another young schoolmistress was ‘not eighteen.’ ¶A familiar poet and novelist, Sarah N. Cleghorn, is the author of A Turnpike Lady, The Spinster, Portraits and Protests.Philip Cabot deals in this issue with holding the faith whose winning he told of in the August Atlantic under the title ‘The Conversion of a Sinner.’ That his life and thought has never followed the channels of conventional religious service or worship lends these papers an unusual interest. Mr. Cabot has been a successful promoter and manager of public utility corporations, and a banker. His major interest at present is the remarkable revival of preaching services at King’s Chapel, an ancient Unitarian church of Boston. The next Ingersoll lecture at Harvard will be delivered by Mr. Cabot. Ingersoll lecturers have included in times past among other distinguished thinkers and scientists, William James, Josiah Royce, and Sir William Osler.

Mark O. Prentiss, an American industrial engineer who went to Constantinople for the Near East Relief, was at Smyrna during the capture and burning of the city, and was charged with the evacuation of refugees by the United States naval authorities. He had ample opportunities — which he improved — for talking with Mustapha Kemal and the other Turkish leaders. ¶Joint author of ‘ The Blood of the Martyrs which appeared in the Atlantic in July 1922, Elgin E. Groseclose is an American missionary to Persia. Dr. Gustav Cassel of the University of Stockholm has a wide European reputation as an economist and has served on a variety of official commissions in connection with Reparations. He is the author of Theory of Political Economy, The World’s Monetary Problems, and other volumes. Lloyd George has spoken of him as ‘one of the most brilliant economists in the world.

In ‘What Shall We Do About It?’ (October Atlantic), Mr. Haywood draws a number of vivid portraits of citizens who are highly virtuous in all respects, save bootlegging. But should he not have added the picture of the judges and respectable business men who buy from the bootlegger? This question is asked by Frederick S. Dickson, who sends us some of the best paragraphs we have read in the enormous correspondence which has come our way since we started the discussion.

DEAR ATLANTIC, —
Mr. Haywood’s query, ‘What shall we do about it? ‘ was well worth the asking and must be answered sooner or later by the rest of us. It is admirable in tone and deserves its place at the head of the October number, but he is palpably in error when he declares that none of his violators of the law ‘would hesitate a moment in calling a halt, if they saw or knew of any infraction of any other criminal law.’ He does not state this as a fact but merely urges it as an opinion, and in doing so mars his argument, because it is against human nature. Last summer my attention was called to the case of a gamewarden who added to his scanty income by distributing smuggled liquor to his neighbors. ‘Of course,’ said my informant, ‘any guide may now fish where he pleases, take as many as he will, and gather in a deer before the season opens, for the warden dare not inform on him, fearing he will himself get in bad. In this the warden may have been unjustly accused but the statement carried conviction because it had behind it the human nature which Mr. Haywood’s dictum lacks.
The writer has described various types of lawbreakers; Charley, who is now well dressed and successful, whereas he was but lately shabby and a failure; the well brought up ex-soldier, who was restless and unhappy but is now content and comfortable; the Italian maker of excellent claret, who cannot see why not; the old salt, who thinks those who object are hypocrites, and is constant in his attendance at church; and the lonely farmer, with his applejack, and the State policeman who called and enjoyed the decoction. These are the people he portrays, all of them smugglers, or bootleggers, and all of them prosperous, and unhampered, but he fails even to mention the chief offenders, the class of criminal that gives life to this illicit trade, the men who buy this smuggled and tainted liquor, and pay big prices for it. They are quite well aware that it is their money that makes this evil trade possible, their money that is used to corrupt government officials. They are not only the chief criminals, but they are by far the most numerous class. These men excuse and palliate their participation in crime by pointing out the unfair and illegal acts of the professional prohibitionists. They claim, very properly, that they were willing to forego all liquor during the continuance of the war, and so supported a law to that effect, but when the war ended before the date set for the law to be enforced, it was sheer dishonesty to claim that the war was not yet ended, when all the world knew that it was. This was all true enough, but however tricky the prohibitionists may have been, however unlawful may have been their acts, it does not justify us in flouting what is now the unmistakable law of the land.
Obviously the bootleggers would lose their very profitable trade if their customers refused to buy; but how can we hope to enforce a law when we make it so profitable to disobey it? An acquaintance in Washington asked a bootlegger for a bottle of Scotch and was told, ‘ I cannot get it just now. Stocks are low and it is as much as I can do to supply Congress.’ It is clear that when Congress is in session the enforcement agents relax their vigilance. At another time it was claimed that supplies intended for Washington had been diverted to the Middle West, where there was a cry for the liquid and a promise of higher prices. To-day the supply seems steadier and the ruling prices somewhat lower. In New York everyone who wants it seems to have it, even at the most modest functions. One host supplies cocktails at a dinner and when a return is made the bootlegger has a new customer. If one refuses to buy he will find his social intercourse greatly restricted. This attitude while general is by no means universal, and I know one good woman who has since her youth been in the habit of taking a glass of sherry or Madeira at her dinner. She is in her seventies now and the indulgence could do her no harm, yet since this law went into effect not a drop of wine has appeared on her table. There may be other similar cases but I know not one.
The fact that this law affected trade was merely incidental, for the object was to prevent drinking and abolish drunkenness, and millions conspire to evade it. Well, what shall we do about it? We may detest the saloon but even it is not as bad as the deplorable condition that confronts us.
FREDERICK S. DICKSON.

It is interesting to note how immediately this Atlantic article was followed by a national revival of the discussion of Prohibition.

That the youth of the country is not without definite views on ‘What Shall We Do About It? ‘ is clear from this letter from a high school where Mr. Haywood’s article was made the subject of an English theme.

DEAR ATLANTIC, —
I found the high-school student’s reaction to Mr. Haywood’s article ‘ What Shall We Do About It? ‘ pertinent and revealing. I enclose some papers which were written in class without previous discussion or preparation other than the reading of the article itself.
The opinions expressed are in answer to the following questions: —

1. Why is the article impressive and convincing?

2. For which of these lawbreakers do you feel the greatest contempt?

3. For which do you feel some sympathy?

4. Is the total effect of the article to make the reader more inclined to condemn violations of the law or to question the merit of the law itself?

5. What is most to be deplored — (a) the fact that the law exists, (b) the fact that the law is violated, (c) the kind of people who violate the law, (d) the general attitude of the public toward the violation of the law?

Tabulating the answers in a class of twentyfive boys and girls of average high-school age and intelligence, all felt that the article was convincing because it presents facts; fourteen expressed the greatest contempt for ‘Charley,’ seven for the soldier, three for the State police, one for the Italians; nine felt some sympathy was due the Italians, seven felt some sympathy for the soldier, six felt some sympathy for the old sailorman, two for the farmer and one for ‘Charley’; twenty-three expressed the opinion that the total effect of the article was to make the reader question the merit of the law, while only two thought that the article would make the reader more inclined to condemn violations of the law. Fourteen expressed the idea that the general attitude of the public toward the violation of the law is most to be deplored; five thought that the existence of the law is most to be deplored.
IRENE A. COFFIN.
BERKELEY HIGH SCHOOL
Berkeley, Calif.

Here is a Roman Catholic reply to Katharine Fullerton Gerould’s article ‘Divorce’ in the October Atlantic: —

DEAR ATLANTIC, —
Please let me supply some theological information to Mrs. Gerould. It is entirely wrong to describe the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage as ‘asceticism pure and simple.’ It is perfectly true that the Church regards religious celibacy as a higher state, but it does not follow at all that she looks on marriage as ‘a concession to the weakness of the race.’ It does not follow, in other words, that because better is better, good is not good.
The Church’s insistence on the sanctity and dignity of marriage has been constant since her conflicts with the falsely ‘spiritual’ Gnostics and Manichsæans to the present day. Her teaching in regard to the sacramental character of Christian marriage, completely explicit in mediæval times, was implicit from the first. The same writers, Tertullian, Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, who may seem to speak slightingly of marriage when they are primarily concerned with praising virginity, can be also quoted in praise of the married state. Incidentally, Tertullian cannot be taken as a witness to Catholic doctrine after he had joined the heretical and rigoristic sect of Montanists, whose view of marriage was much lower and who condemned second marriages as an abomination.
If Mrs. Gerould wishes to find an extensive collection of quotations in praise of marriage from mediæval religious writers she should consult Chapter 22, Volume IV, of Lamond’s Translation of Grisar’s Life of Luther. Even the natural marriage of non-Christians is described by Leo XIII as having God for its author and as possessing from the very beginning ‘a something holy and religious, not extraneous but innate, not derived from man but implanted by nature.’ In short, the Church has always defended the sanctity of marriage just as strenuously as she has maintained the superior sanctity of religious celibacy.
Two facts in regard to the latter doctrine need to be emphasized. In the first place those who are called to the higher state are in a minority. In the second place those who are not so called can attain to the highest degree of personal holiness in the married state, not by ‘a minimum of passion,’ but, to a great extent, by the special and peculiar graces which the sacrament confers. The reasons for the Church’s teaching in regard to the relative dignity of the two states, considered as such, need not be here discussed. They do not include any such quasi-Manichean contempt for the body as Mrs. Gerould describes. ‘The Unknown Eros’ of Coventry Patmore is a thoroughly Catholic poem whose author received nothing but emphatic approval from the contemplative monks whose friend he was.
T. LAWRASON RIGGS.

Following Mr. Rossiter’s article, ‘Three Sentinels of the North’ (July Atlantic), a convention of farmers and business men was held in New Hampshire to discuss practical measures for building up the state. A committee was appointed and money raised for a careful survey of the state’s resources. Real results these, and still the discussion persists.

DEAR ATLANTIC, —
After reading Mr. Rossiter’s appeal to the Sentinel States of Northern New England to call to their service their half-million sons and daughters, now living elsewhere, I am moved to ask ‘Why not enlist, also, the multitude of grateful people from other states who derive lengthened lives and renewed vigor from summer homes or annual sojourns within these states? ‘
One modest and immediately practicable form of first aid to sentinels would be saving the babies who die, before their first birthday, from preventable causes, to the number approximately of thirty thousand in each decennial census period, and their mothers of whom far too many die each year from causes directly related to childbirth.
These lost children are native citizens. Mr. Rossiter’s figures suggest that they are largely of native parentage. Here then is a loss of population grievous in itself and injurious to the whole nation.
In 1922 there died, according to the preliminary figures of the United States Census, before reaching the first birthday, in Vermont 550 babies, in New Hampshire 1779, and in Maine 1503, all told 3832. In the three states the infant mortality rates for 1922 are, Maine 87, New Hampshire 80, and Vermont 73. An infant mortality rate is the number of babies in each 1000 born alive who die before their first birthday. In the same year, 1922, two Western Sentinels, Minnesota and Washington kept their rate down to 58 and 62 respectively. New Zealand in 1921, the latest year for which figures are yet accessible, achieved a rate of only 48 deaths among one thousand children born alive.
Saving babies’ lives requires, fortunately, no spectacular, costly crusade. In Canada, nursing homes are placed in accessible spots. A physician attached to each cares for mothers who come to the home, and their newborn children, so acquiring special skill and continuous practice. From these centres, along ever-improving roads in ever-cheapening motor-cars, public health nurses carry instruction and service to isolated homes.
Because the legislatures of Maine and Vermont will not meet before 1925, Federal aid in these states will be unavailable meanwhile for organizing baby clinics and conferences as parts of local centres of interest and instruction. Here then is an immediate, urgent opportunity, alike for distant sons and daughters, and for grateful ‘summer folk,’ to initiate or finance local babyhealth centres where none yet exist, to strengthen the funds of the present centres, and in general to coöperate with the child-hygiene bureaus, to the end that the children of the Sentinels may be preserved for our Republic.
FLORENCE KELLEY.