Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

236

The French Shakespeare

century was probably ever known-the era of what-nots, hair cloth furniture, Rogers groups, and lambrequins in interior decoration; of brownstone fronts and cupolas and mansard roofs in architecture; and of moustache cups, "handpainted" cuspidors, and gold toothpicks in personal bric-a-brac. The great injustice is that these things have been too widely accepted as representing the height of American artistic achievement-as characteristic of our civilization as the Parthenon to Greek, Versailles to French, and the work of Christopher Wren to English. The great truth brought out by the new American Wing is that these grotesqueries represented merely a temporary slump, a phenomenon not peculiar to this country; the fact is that they were merely part and parcel of that Victorian commonplaceness and stupidity that was almost as marked in England as in the United States.

The one quality that was so constant in Americans of the Colonial and Revolutionary period and which is not so apparent in their descendants, was a kind of serene dignity. It appears in the wainscotting of a Virginia home, in the delicate doorway of a New England "mansion," in the quiet beauty of a Gilbert Stuart canvas, in the lovely productions of the New England and Middle State cabinet makers. It is the same trait that is uppermost in the lives and writings of the Revolutionary leaders-Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, and the Adamses.

A dip into the life of Jefferson-with his Greek and Latin authors (in the original tongues) at his side, his taste for French philosophers and statesmen, his never-failing diaries, duly recording the daily progress of his vegetables and plants, as well as the visits of European statesmen, writers, and generals, his horseback wanderings amid his neighboring mountains, and all the other innumerable details of a placid and thoughtful country existence is needed properly to supply the personal side of the architectural and artistic setting which this great museum has so splendidly provided.

Yet, even without this, Americans can there learn that their ancestors were a dignified people, and it is a lesson worth while in an age of automobiles, jazz, and radio.

J

Molière for American Theater Goers AMES K. HACKETT, more than a year ago, presented "Macbeth" at the Odéon Theater in Paris: this was the first time that an American actor was invited to produce a play at this ancient institution. The Parisian company, and the audiences also, were so pleased with the work of Mr. Hackett that, when an invitation to play before American audiences was extended through our Department of State, the Odéon company gladly accepted.

Thus it came about that American theater-goers had an opportunity to decide as to the truth of the thesis maintained by Clayton Hamilton elsewhere in this issue. For once they did not have to go to Paris to see Molière at the Comédie Française: instead, Molière was brought from Paris for their special benefit. M. Firmin Gémier-one of the most versatile and original actors of the Continental stage and his company of Odéon players presented, in their two and a half weeks' visit, plays both ancient and modern. The latter, such as "L'Homme Qui Assassina" and "Le Procureur Hallers," were not appreciated so much as were the plays of past centuries. Possibly as a compliment to his Englishspeaking audiences, M. Gémier included in his repertoire two of Shakespeare's plays-"The Taming of the Shrew" and "The Merchant of Venice"-which of course were presented in French.

But undoubtedly his greatest success, both from the standpoint of finished acting and from the satisfaction of his audiences, was M. Gémier's presentation of "Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme." In Molière's comedy there is so much action that it is doubtful if even a person with little knowledge of French would have much difficulty in following the play. And of course great credit must be given to M. Gémier and his company for their

truly wonderful acting, which came near to breaking down the barrier of the foreign language.

Americans interested in the drama and in acting knew previously of the great work of the French players; a larger number of playgoers were enabled, by the recent visit of the Odéon players, to judge of their art. Undoubtedly, with our veneration of everything French, from women's styles to rules of etiquette, a certain number of people thought that seeing the Odéon players was "the thing to do." But the large majority of the audience, even though their mastery of French may not have been perfect, attended because their active interest in the drama informed them that here were performances of a quality not usual on Broadway. And, now that Americans know of the great acting of the French players, we can perhaps hope for another visit, of longer duration, in the near fu

ture.

The American Judicial System Spreading All Over the World

S

ENATOR LA FOLLETTE and Mr. Gompers have performed a great service in directing popular attention to the Supreme Court, and, incidentally, to the constitutional as opposed to the parliamentary system of government. One of the unexpected features of the Presidential campaign was thus an educational course in the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

One error, however, constantly appeared in practically all the discussions. The statement was frequently made, by the defenders of the Supreme Court, that the United States was the only country in which the judiciary exercised the power of setting aside laws of the legislature. This, it was urged, was the great American contribution to the science of government. A recently published pamphlet by Mr. Henry H. Wilson, ex-president of the Nebraska State Bar Association, shows that, while this power of the court may be American in its

origin, it is a practice by no means exclusively American. In countries which have no written constitution framed by the people or their representatives and amendable only by them, there is obviously no reason for this extension of judicial power. The British Constitution, for example, is precisely what Parliament makes it, from day to day; Parliament, that is, is the supreme authority, and obviously there is no need of a court setting aside its laws as beyond its law making powers, for its powers are not limited, but all-embracing.

In the several Dominions of the British Empire, however, quite a different state of affairs exists. Practically all these nations live under the protection of written documents, like the United States; and in all of them the courts exercise that power, which has recently aroused so much controversy in the United States, of setting aside legislation. "The Supreme Court of Canada," writes Mr. Doutre, a Canadian authority, "and the Privy Council in England, have both recognized the right assumed by the provincial courts of original and appellate jurisdiction, to pass upon the constitutionality of the laws enacted by the provincial legislatures and the Parliament of Canada. This was anticipated by the framers of the Act, as appears in the debates in the House of Commons." The Act referred to is the British North America Act, of 1867, which is really the written constitution of Canada. Three years after the adoption of the Constitution of South Africa, in 1909, the highest court in the Union set aside a law of Parliament as unconstitutional. "Our courts," it said, "have every right to inquire whether any statute has transgressed the limits of the subject in regard to which the legislature is empowered to legislate." The courts of India and New Zealand similarly decide when the legislature has exceeded its constitutional powers. The Constitution of Australia, adopted in 1901, practically incorporates the American judicial system, including this right to set aside extra-constitutional laws.

[blocks in formation]

posal that the courts, jointly with the President, should possess the veto against all acts of Congress-that is, a political power as distinguished from a judicial one. Mr. Wilson also shows that this exercise of judicial power was not new at the time. He quotes a large number of cases, all decided before 1787, in which state courts had set aside, as unconstitutional, acts of state legislatures. The exercise of this judicial power was already the established practice in six of the thirteen states before the adoption of the Federal Constitution!

The new Constitution of Prussia, the convention disapproved was a proformerly the most autocratic of the German states, expressly confers this power upon the courts. "The Landtag, "The Landtag," says Article 29, "shall have legislative authority within the limits prescribed by the Constitution"; and, says Article 87, "Constitutional conflicts shall be decided by the State Supreme Court.' The thing could hardly be put in plainer language than that. The new constitution of the Reich, adopted in 1919, is almost as specific. "National laws," says Article 13, "are superior to the laws of the states. Should any doubt or difference of opinion arise as to whether a state regulation is compatible with a law of the Reich, the competent national or state authority may request a decision from a superior judicial court of the Reich in accordance with the more specific requirements of a national law." That covers, of course, only state laws in conflict with Federal, but other sections of the Constitution clearly give the courts supreme authority over the constitutionality of all legislation.

The "Judicial Veto" No Invention of
John Marshall

[ocr errors]

HUS the American system is taking root in the constitutions of many progressive countries. Mr. Wilson's extremely valuable paper calls attention to other misconceptions. One is that John Marshall "usurped" this power and that it is not found in the Constitution. Mr. Wilson insists that the second section of Article III-"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" is a specific grant to the Federal courts to set aside unconstitutional legislation and gives most weighty reasons for his contention. He completely disposes of the assertion, made by Senator La Follette and others, that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered the question of granting this authority to the courts and voted it down. What

Thus, this power was no invention of John Marshall. Another even more astonishing fact is the slight extent to which the Supreme Court has declared acts of Congress null and void. From 1789 to 1914, several hundreds of thousands of measures had been passed by the Federal legislature. Of that vast multitude the Supreme Court has set aside just thirty-five!

The Banner States in Civic Duty:
Indiana and Kansas

T

HOSE organizations that made heroic efforts to "get out the vote" at the recent election can take at least a slight satisfaction in the result. There were approximately 26,000,000 voters in 1920, and approximately 30,000,000 last November. The statisticians figured that 44 per cent. of the eligible voters visited the polls in 1920, compared with 52.8 per cent. in 1924. In the growth of the sense of civic responsibility, even a few integers and a few decimal places mark a district gain.

Americans are taught that the act of voting is one form of patriotism, and that abstention from the polls in itself is a form of treason to the state. On this subject more than one point of view is tenable; the casuist might maintain that he had no civic obligation to vote for one of two candidates, when his conscience revolted at the suggestion of either one in an office of public trust. Yet the test has a certain value.

The National Association of Manufacturers has compiled tables on the late election, disclosing the record of each state in this regard. These figures, incidentally, make clear one explanation, which most observers had previously overlooked, for the apparently bad showing made by the American electorate at these quadrennial contests. This is that This is that the general average is greatly lowered by the indifference of the Southern states. The fact at first seems hardly credible that only 8 per cent. of the qualified voters of South Carolina participated in the November struggle, only 10 per cent. of those of Georgia, and only 10 per cent. of those of Mississippi. Virginia, that powerful force in American history, cast only 17 per cent. of its vote. As would be expected, the best record of any state of the Solid South was that of North Carolina, but even this advanced commonwealth was satisfied with a record of 37 per cent. For such manifestations there is, of course, a special reason. states where the result is foreordained, there would naturally be a small attendance at the polls.

In

If the South is excluded from these statistics, as it should properly be, the percentage of total vote cast is not 52.8 but 61. If interest in elections is a fair test of patriotism, then Indiana is our most patriotic state, with Kansas a close second. The figure for Hoosierdom is 83.2 per cent. and for Kansas 80.3. Not far in the rear come Washington, 76.3; Minnesota, 73.2; and New Hampshire, 70.1. Our largest state (in population), New York, cast 60.5 of its vote and our smallest, Nevada, 60.4-almost the same percentage. The survey, properly interpreted, shows that the carelessness of Americans in performing this civic duty has been somewhat exaggerated.

The Life of a Street

N ALL American cities, West as well

as East, are signs that our established communities are beginning to feel their age, though most of them, even the oldest, still have growing pains. The

swiftly growing communities in the West and Middle West have taken on an air of stability and permanence; they are not the straggling places mirrored and satirized by Charles Dickens and Mark Twain. Even that period of demolition and reconstruction so vividly pictured by Booth Tarkington in "The Magnificent Ambersons" and "The Midlander" has passed to a great extent in our midland cities. The business centers of our cities have passed out of the frontier stage of development, with nearly all their buildings of modern and permanent construction; they look more like cities and less like towns or settlements.

The tendency toward permanence and maturity is visible in most of our Western and Middle Western cities. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument in Indianapolis, for instance, so similar in general aspect to the Nelson monument in Trafalgar Square, looks just as old as the London column, and the general appearance of the plaza around it has the same appearance of maturity. In the capitol grounds in Denver the age-stained monument to the Colorado veterans of the Civil War stands within earshot of the clamor of a growing city. Salt Lake City, with all its monuments and memorials to the founders, chronicles in marble and bronze the figures of its local history with much the same lavishness as the heroes of national history are presented in Washington. When a city reaches the point of memorializing its great or prominent it is growing old, because few memorials can be put up until the petty jealousies and prejudices of life have been completely eclipsed by the subjects' records of achievements. That period of general appreciation frequently is postponed for years after the death not only of the man himself, but also of his critics.

In view of the impermanence of the character of sections in a great and growing city like New York, it is unusual that the merchants of Fifth Avenue should

have recently observed the one hundredth anniversary of the creation of that great thoroughfare. In other cities perhaps only four New York thoroughfares are

240

Culture and Business Success

widely known-Wall Street, Broadway, The Bowery, and Fifth Avenue. Fifth Avenue, more than any of the others, typifies the metropolis. Running seven miles through the heart of Manhattan, it passes from magnificence to squalor, from wealth to poverty, from beauty to ugliness, from tenement to palace. Its architecture encompasses the sublime and the ridiculous; its history passes from the funeral of Grant to the last Boy Scout parade.

It is a street of pomp and pageantry, and along its ways have passed victorious divisions returning from the wars. Nearly all our Presidents of the last century and nearly all the country's distinguished visitors have driven through Fifth Avenue to receive the plaudits of throngs. Fifth Avenue has greeted the Prince of Wales, later Edward VII, the present Prince of Wales, Li Hung Chang, Prince Henry of Prussia, Joffre, Foch, Viviani, Clemenceau, the King and Queen of the Belgians, and countless lesser notables. It is the thoroughfare in which the metropolis takes pride; it is a civic institution, more than a street-the soul of a city.

Though both city regulations and semipublic watchfulness guard the great highway against harmful or undignified intrusion, it is a thoroughfare of constant change; that tells a story of progress. On its one hundredth anniversary, plans for more changes are being formed. The famous old Astor mansion has been sold and will give way to a modern apartment house. Historic Madison Square Garden, scene of the longest national political convention in history, will soon be replaced with an office building-though it is not situated on Fifth Avenue, its position on a corner of Madison Square, as well as its historic associations, really make it a part of the Avenue.

The millions who visit the famous thoroughfare have caused it to make many improvements in traffic control. Its bus system has spread to St. Louis, Chicago, and other cities, and its system of regulating vehicular traffic by colored lights is used in Philadelphia, Omaha, and

other cities in this country, as well as in foreign cities. Thus, though it is a permanent institution in the life of a city, its changes in appearance typify progress. When Fifth Avenue, or Philadelphia's Broad Street, or Chicago's Michigan Avenue, cease to change in contour, the citizens might as well call in the archaologists, for the civilization those thoroughfares represent is dead or declining.

Money Value of a College Education

T

HE cash value of a college education to its possessor is $72,000, according to a report made public to-day by Dean Everett W. Lord of the Boston University College of Business Administration, based on a lengthy study of the earning capacity of college graduates."

The foregoing quotation is the first sentence of an Associated Press despatch recently printed in the newspapers. It should form the subject of an interesting discussion. Already one correspondent of this magazine registers a strong dissent. His letter is published, not necessarily because the magazine agrees with the argument, but because it states the opposing case ably and is stimulating to thought:

Dean Lord's generalization is another curious case of non-sequitur, or, more accurately, of ignoring the real cause in favor of a specious one. Dr. Lord found that the average total earnings of three types of men by the time they had reached the age of sixty were as follows: untrained men, $45,000; high school graduates, $78,000; college graduates, $150,000. Therefore, according to the despatch, the difference in value between a high school education and a college education is $72,000.

Of course, this reasoning is perfect nonsense. Anybody of ordinary intelligence who runs over the list of successful men of his own acquaintance knows that this conclusion bears no relation to the facts of life. These successful men are not successful because they had a college education. The correct statement is, that some of these men got a college education for exactly the same reason that they "got" success, namely, because they had "getting"

« AnteriorContinuar »