The play is intended to show how the absorption of the average man in his own affairs and in the interests of his small group of friends is responsible for popular indifference which often makes the conscientious public servant lonely and disheartened. The district attorney, as candidate for governor, has returned from a campaign trip. “There are one million men out for the graft and nine million who don’t care,” he says. His daughter replies: “That does not seem like you, father.” “Well,” he adds, “you ought to have seen them all along the line of my trip; big meetings, cheering, too, plenty of enthusiasm. But the minute I left each town I felt it all suddenly die right out. Every man jack of them back to his business, his job and his friends—the things he really cares about—and I felt as though I had carried on the cheers of each town. Each town throwing it all at my head and shouting ‘Go on, be a hero, save the country—only for God’s sake leave us alone, we have not time, we are busy.’” BRIEUX’S “DAMAGED GOODS” PRESENTED “I didn’t know” bids fair to become an obsolete phrase in connection with the nature of the social evil, if the ripples started by the production of Brieux’s Damaged Goods in New York this spring extend as far as its sponsors intend. The Committee of the Sociological Fund of the _Medical Review of Reviews_ believe that syphilis should no longer be regarded as a mysterious disease, whose ravages are to be shunned but its causes ignored. Bernard Shaw’s preface to the Brieux play, with its warning against the usual treatment of the subject as taboo and its appeal for publicity and legal assistance in coping with the evil, was read by a clergyman well known for his human contact with every-day social conditions. The drama itself was simply staged and given a sympathetic reading by a strong cast. Almost every bearing of the menace on family and social life is brought out in a way well calculated to meet prejudice due to indifference, ignorance or tradition, and to create a conviction that here is a scourge to be conquered by publicity. Those who saw the play had come with various mental attitudes. Some were even vaguely questioning whether they had come to see a play or hear a sermon. Not a few of the theatrical critics have dubbed it the latter, but to many parents this very quality made it seem peculiarly profitable for young men who are breaking loose from home life. By some it was even felt that the educational value of the piece would justify its being given a special performance at some holiday season, and that prevention through knowledge would thus be promoted. NEW YORK CHARITIES AND THE LAW MAKERS