to prevent and to cure disease. The AntiVivisection Society of Philadelphia procured an indictment of one of the officers of the University for performing these experiments. Whether these experiments were properly conducted, whether reasonable pains were taken to protect the animals operated on from all needless pain and to care for their comfort and well-being both before and after the operation, we shall not discuss. We are not undertaking to defend the University or any of its officers. The general reputation of this University should be enough to defend it from charges of either deliberate or careless cruelty. It is enough to say that the method of treatment in the laboratories of the University has recently been carefully and thoroughly investigated by a special committee of the Board of Trustees, and that their report, based on such investigation, has been unanimously approved and adopted by the Board; and that the University invited the jury to visit the kennels and judge for themselves, an invitation which the Court did not permit them to accept. The real basis of the charge brought by the Anti-Vivisection Society against the member of the University was that any vivisection, in order to acquire accurate knowledge for the purpose of preventing and curing disease, is immoral and unlawful.

What concerns us in this trial is the extraordinary charge of the Judge before whom the case was tried-so extraordinary that The Outlook would not comment upon it until it obtained the official report of the charge, and on that official report this article is based.

A statute of Pennsylvania enacted in 1869, "for the punishment of cruelty to animals in this Commonwealth," provides that any person who shall, within this Commonwealth, wantonly or cruelly ill treat, overload, beat, or otherwise abuse any animal, whether belonging to himself or otherwise," shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. A physician of the University of Pennsylvania was indicted under this Act. It was the duty of the Judge to tell the jury what is the meaning of this Act. What is it wantonly or cruelly to ill treat an animal? The Judge in his charge replied as follows:

Wantonness, or to wantonly do an act, is to purposely or recklessly or heedlessly allow it to be done, or to do something which ought not to have been done.

Lest any doubt should remain in the minds

of the jury as to the significance of this definition, the Judge added:

I charge you that the law of Pennsylvania does not allow pain and suffering or torment or torture to be inflicted upon dogs for any purpose, except for the relief of the suffering of the dog itself. No one has any right to torture a dog, or violate the law, as I have read it to you, for the purpose of obtaining scientific information.

We do not wonder that the jury were perplexed by these statements. After the case was submitted to them, they returned to the court-room and asked again to have "wantonly "defined to them, and at the same time requested to take a dictionary into the jury-room. The Judge complied with the first request, repeating his definition :

Wantonly means a thing which was done purposely, or purposely neglected to be done, or which was recklessly done or omitted to be done.

"There

He declined the second request. is." said the Judge, "a very distinct difference between the dictionary definition of words and the legal definition of words. For that reason, I would rather give you the definition of the word that I consider the law means, because, if I make a mistake in what I say, it can be corrected by the Appellate Court."

We have exercised the liberty which the jury were not permitted to exercise. We have turned to the Century Dictionary. It defines wantonly, recklessly, unadvisedly, thoughtlessly, without regard for right or consequences." We have also turned to a recognized authority, Bouvier's Dictionary, for a legal definition of the word. Wantonly is defined by Bouvier as "done in a licentious spirit, perversely, recklessly, without regard to propriety or the rights of others; careless of consequences, and yet without settled malice." How the Judge, in the face of the definitions, both literary and legal, could declare that inflicting pain on animals for the purpose of saving the life of man is inflicting it without regard to right or consequences (Century Dictionary) or without regard to propriety or the rights of others (Bouvier) surpasses our comprehension.

We have also obtained some light on the meaning, not only of the word but of the statute, from a previous decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. In the Commonwealth against Lewis, that Court held that "shooting at pigeons liberated from

a trap, killing one and wounding another, did not violate the law making it a misdemeanor wantonly or cruelly to ill treat or otherwise abuse an animal." "It is doubtless true," said the Court in that case, that much pain and suffering are often caused to different kinds of game by the unskillfulness of sportsmen. A squirrel, badly wounded, may yet crawl to its hole and suffer for many hours or days, and die. So with birds. They are often badly wounded, and yet manage to get away only to suffer. It was not pretended that the act applied to such cases. The sportsman in the woods is not responsible for the accuracy of his aim under the Act of 1869." How Judge Bregy could hold, in the face of this decision, that the law forbids inflicting pain upon an animal except for the animal's benefit also surpasses our comprehension.

If it be true, as stated by Judge Bregy in the present case, "that no one has a right to inflict pain upon an animal except for the relief of the animal itself," then, as shown in a subsequent letter of Mr. Samuel Dickson, the legal representative of the University, there can be neither hunting nor fishing nor the killing of cattle or sheep for food, nor the gelding of calves, colts, etc., which has been common from time immemorial. Then, too, there could have been in the past none of the experiments performed which have given us antiseptic surgery, a knowledge of bacteriology, which enables us to discover the very earliest stages of tuberculosis, antitoxin for diphtheria and for lockjaw, vaccine for the prevention of typhoid fever, or the many and great improvements in surgical operations which vivisection has given to us. Nor would it be now possible to obtain and test vaccine for protection against smallpox by the inoculation of calves, or the anti-toxin from the inoculation of horses against diphtheria, lockjaw, or the epidemic form of cerebro-spinal meningitis. How far this decision would go, carried out to its logical consequences, is indicated by the fact that the Judge would not allow the defendant to show the beneficial results to humanity obtained in human surgery from experiments in vivisection.

In this particular case the jury, despite the ruling of the Judge. disagreed and were discharged. We have reported the case because not only the medical faculty, but all men and women, and especially all fathers and mothers, ought to know the extent to which the anti-vivisection fad would carry the

Nation if it could. in its sentimental regard for animal suffering and its extraordinary disregard of human suffering.

Vivisection should be regulated by law, as it is in New York State. not abolished by law, as Judge Bregy would have it abolished in Pennsylvania.

HEROISM AND DUTY

The men who gave up their lives at Vera Cruz and at Laredo in the service of the navy and the army were doing their duty. They died for their country just as truly as if they had been resisting an invasion from an overwhelming foe. The first to be shot was the young man detailed to raise the flag of the United States over the Mexican Custom-House at Vera Cruz. We print his portrait on another page. It is an emblem of the sacrifice this Nation is called upon to make in its attempt to perform its duty towards civilization by laying the foundations for order and justice in distracted Mexico.

While these young men lay dead a strange funeral oration was delivered in the House of Representatives. Mr. Saunders, of Virginia, took the occasion of their death as a text for his protest against the praise of men who do their duty. To him the laudation of anybody who does his duty seemed to be "distressing."

He particularly remonstrated against giving such praise to a naval officer for performing his duty. Why should he not do his duty?" Mr. Saunders asked. “Why should he not fight? . . . We train our naval officers for that sole and exclusive purpose. ... Why should they not do their duty, after we have educated them, given them oppor tunity, and relieved them from all anxieties and responsibility in connection with the mere details of livelihood?" Mr. Saunders cited Admiral Bob" Evans as a man who might have been a postmaster in a little mountain town, but instead became an admiral and did his duty. He compared him with a fireman or policeman who dies wept, unhonored, and unsung." He deplored praising such men. They only do their duty.

un

If we shall not praise men for doing their duty, what shall we praise them for? Shan we praise them for not doing their duty? Or shall we come to the conclusion that praise is undemocratic ?

Close in spirit to Mr. Saunders, of Vir

T

HE offer of the

ABC" countries— Argentina, Brazil, and Chile-to mediate in the Mexican problem has called forth interesting foreign comment. France in general, Paris in particular, has had a special interest in the subject of mediation ever since 1838. We may reflect with pride that in that year an American, our Minister at Paris, Lewis Cass, propounded the principle of mediation. Curiously enough, the conflict which suggested our action was also one with Mexico. Mr. Cass was instructed to offer his assistance in any form which might prove beneficial in solving the question between France and Mexico, and he stated that the American President “ would not feel any delicacy in tendering his good offices." The terms "good offices" and "mediation" have become synonymous.

The Paris papers, as might be expected. speak first of all upon the nature of General Huerta's acceptance of mediation, if his resignation is to be made an advance condition of mediation. Will he resign?" asks the Paris "Gaulois," and thus answers its own question:

It is not very probable that he will cede his place to his adversaries, whom he has been doggedly opposing for months, just at the moment when he is appealed to as representing the sole regular government of his country.

The better-known" Figaro," whose editor, Gaston Calmette, was recently murdered, also wonders whether Huerta will be disposed to let himself be eliminated. The Figaro" remarks:

He is an Indian, and as such is as far removed in sentiments from the Latins of the South as from the Americans of the North. It is to be feared he may resist the former just as he has resisted the latter, for he is foxy, obstinate, and energetic.

On the other hand, the Paris "Excelsior" is more interested in the significance of the mediation of Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, saying that many will be inclined to read in it the signs of a South American resolve to raise a barrier against the encroachment of the new Monroeism."

In sympathy with many other European papers, some of the English journals warn the United States against any notion of a war of conquest, declaring, in the words of the London “ Morning Post," that, if such appearance exists, "all South America will be against us."

Concerning Huerta, the Morning Post" would not be surprised if he should regard the acceptance of mediation as a "climb down" and should persuade himself that by standing firm his triumph is assured. On the other hand, the Post" warns him that if he expects the United States to shrink from the last resort, "whatever efforts and sacrifices may be necessary to secure victory for her cause, he is making a grave mistake and will be rudely undeceived." Finally, the "Post" commends President Wilson for taking advantage of an honorable means of escape from a difficult situation.

The London Daily Graphic," however, expresses doubt that any mediation will avail to settle the conflict between the two countries, for this reason:

It is even possible that it may easily commit the mediators to terms which President Wilson cannot accept. In that case the war would have to proceed with the sympathy of the whole of Latin America overtly on Mexico's side.

The London Daily Express" disparages what it calls" President Wilson's doctrinaire sentimentalism," and adds that "perhaps it would make things easier to admit, among other things, that war is war."

The London "Daily News," while admitting that our acceptance of the offer of mediation may tend to restore confidence between North and South America, points out that "one sees in the offer itself the shadow of a still larger disaster. It is tragic irony that the future peace and prosperity of the whole of the New World is now endangered for the sake of a man like Huerta."

Finally, we have the comment of the highly respected and influential London "Times." It, too, points out that the offer of mediation and its acceptance may have an important, . perhaps a vital, bearing on the relations

between the United States and all Latin America, and adds:

Whatever may be the effect of this development, it cannot be doubted that it will produce an impression favorable to the United States in Latin America. President Wilson's acceptance of mediation will tend to allay the alarms and misgivings in reference to the new Monroe Doctrine, and will do much to convince the Latin-Americans that, whatever imperialist ambitions exist in some quarters in the United States, President Wilson does not share them.

Τ

HE strike in southeastern Colorado has been in progress more than seven months. From the beginning the situation was serious. The miners had been accumulating arms and ammunition for many months. As soon as the strike was declared the mine properties were policed by detective agencies and deputy sheriffs, many of the latter also being furnished by the de'ective agencies. These at once became a source of irritation. Fighting between guards and strikers became general over practically the entire affected territory. Some of these guards and miners had been pitted against each other in previous strikes. The situation became so desperate that one month after the strike began the Governor called out the militia. This force, consisting of about twelve hundred men, was under command of Adutant-General John Chase, and was well ficered and equipped. The strikers, believng that they would be protected against the fensive actions of the professional guards and gunmen, appeared to welcome the advent of the militia. Some of the miners were scattered over the strike area, but the greater part were grouped in the tent colonies, each of which was located near the mines in which the men had previously worked. Their plan of campaign seemed to be to shut every mine possible, and then keep them closed by picketing. This policy at first promised to sucred. Only a few strike-breakers were imtorted. When the militia were ordered to the district, orders were given to disarm the

strikers and prevent the importation of strikebreakers. Upon the refusal of the strikers to surrender their arms this policy was changed, and all strike-breakers lawfully brought in were allowed to go to work. The presence of the militia prevented forcible picketing. From this time forward the battle went steadily against the strikers.

The conduct of the militia under General Chase was such as to bring great credit to the State. During the whole stay of the main body of the State forces, so far as can be learned, not a person was killed or injured by militiamen, no property save firearms was either destroyed or confiscated. In a few instances persons were unlawfully imprisoned, but the circumstances in every case seemed to render such action imperative. The professional guards employed by the operators were restrained, their machine guns taken from them and many of them sent from the territory, and a reign of order and justice instituted. As usual in such cases, the extremists on both sides were displeased with such conduct. By some the tactics of the Governor and Adjutant-General were characterized as weak and vacillating because they refused to be cruel. The Labor party charged them with being subservient to the operators, and tyrannical in their treatment of the miners. For the first charge there were doubtless some grounds, for the latter there were none. For six months a continual warfare of words was waged. "Mother" Jones frequently spoke at the camps and tent