PEOPLE MUST HAVE FACTS BEFORE PROBLEMS OF PRESENT DAY GOVERNMENT CAN BE SOLVED

Mr. Woods held the position of Police Commissioner of New York City during the years 1914-17, and early in 1918 was appointed associate director of the Committee on Public Information for Foreign Propaganda. He was made an officer in the Avation service shortly after this and in August of the same year received a colonel's commission. During the months between March and September, 1919, he held the position of Assistant Secretary of War, his chief work being in connection with the establishment of service men in civil life.

This is the fifth of a series or articles which the Crimson will publish concerning the college man and politics.

You ask me to write to you about some phase of politics or government which would be of interest to the college man. I suppose what really interests such a man most in matters of government is what can be done to improve things, and particularly what he can do. This is as it should be. Perhaps it would interest some of your readers if we should discuss informally one aspect of the situation that has always impressed me.

It is most difficult to get the facts about government. Without facts how can we come to conclusions, how can we form opinions, yet it is so hard to find out the facts that, so far as I know, no way has yet been devised to obtain and present to an electorate a true picture of their government.

To give an example of what I mean, do any of us know whether the fire departments in our towns do as good a job as they should? We see the engines tearing down the street, we see streams of water directed against the burning building, and ultimately the fire goes out. Who of us knows whether the firemen were unconsciously slow in putting out that fire and whether, therefore, entirely unnecessary damage resulted, or on the other hand were extraordinarly quick and effective and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property and a good many lives by their skill and courage?

The Health Department of a given city--does it do good work? How are the voters to know if the hundred-odd cases of typhoid fever that occur in the city should all be laid as a heavy responsibility on the culpable shoulders of the members of the Board of Health, or if the success of these gentlemen in keeping the number down to such a low figure as one hundred entitles them to the gratitude of the whole body of citizens. Is the infant mortality in the city very low as a result of the conscientious and progressive work of the health authorities or very high because of their poor work? In cases like these two, it may be that we can come to a fair judgment in the matter by comparing the figures for the year in question with figures of previous years. Even if we take the trouble to do this, however, we may lead ourselves to a very false conclusion, for favorable or unfavorable factors may have existed one year that were not in existence in previous years.

With reference to police departments, the effort to find out whether good or poor work is being done is even more difficult. Should the Captain of a precinct be commended for having as few as ten burglaries a month in his territory, or cashiered for having as many as ten? So many other elements enter into the work of a police captain, he has so many other things to do besides prevent burglaries that I never have heard of a system which would give a complete and trustworthy picture of whether he was doing well or not.

People wonder, when they witness the class of men that are sometimes elected to municipal office, whether the majority of people in cities want good government after all. Are they not really better pleased with a comfortable amount of slovenly work on the part of those that reign over them? I do not believe this is so. Making allowances for differences of opinion as to what constitutes good government, I believe that people want it, and that one of the greatest hindrances standing in the way of their getting it is the apparent impossibility of finding out what kind of government they are getting. For this reason I say that anything that helps to bring out the facts as to government is a most desirable thing.

A fair question is, what are we going to do about it? The answer must be that there is no "camino real"; there is no certain method that could be applied with confidence. Improvement is bound to come, it is in the nature of things, but it will probably come slowly. That there has already been substantial improvement along these lines is certain; that future improvement will be more sound and more rapid in proportion as people under stand the need and work to fill it, is also certain. If the American people as a whole should once get it into their heads that they really want to know how they are governed, our question would be quickly worked out.

Another fair question is, will knowledge of the facts turn the trick in our modern political life? The answer must be that it will not. People who wish to do what they can to improve government must keep in mind the part played in public life by emotions. Elections probably go far more frequently by what appeals to the heart than by any appeal to the head. Sometimes well intentioned men, who feel that they know over so clearly what is best for a city or state, are apt to rely simply on the presentation of the solution as they see it, forgetting the human element. Now, the human element is the big element in public affairs as in most everything else. There are few things in the world after all that we do without coming in contact with other human beings in the doing, and our capacity for gaining results will be greater in proportion as we under stand human nature and use this understanding in bringing about what we think should be done.

It can help enormously to have the facts, but it will not help much unless they are presented in such a way as to make an impression