elements in its population who, though they have not the advantage of Puritan traditions, have applied to their economic conditions some of the revolutionary spirit that the Puritan fathers applied to the political situation of the eighteenth century. Once upon

a time revolution was fashionable in Massachusetts, but now anything that can be regarded as a symbol of revolution must be so thoroughly put out of sight that the flag of the British merchant marine, and the Swiss Republic, and what the "Harvard Bulletin " describes as the flag of the "harmless, necessary auctioneer," must be eliminated at the same time.

The difficulty is that these serious-minded legislators have thought that they could deal with what they regard as a disease by dealing with its symptoms. They may have to learn from their own experience, rather than from the experience of others, that the repression of attempts to express ideas is sometimes the best way to give those ideas wider currency.

THE AMERICAN

CHURCH CONGRESS

The thirty-second session of the American Church Congress, recently held in New Haven, was especially interesting because the place of assembly was Trinity Church, of which the Rev. Dr. Harwood, who was largely instrumental in organizing the Congress forty years ago, was once rector. It was an outgrowth of the feeling among open-minded and broadminded members of the Episcopal Church that there was needed an opportunity for the free discussion of matters vital in the life of the Church, and a platform from which laymen as well as clergymen could be heard. It has offered organized hospitality to new ideas as well as old ones.

The topics discussed at New Haven showed the disappearance of most of the old ecclesiastical questions, and the coming to the front of questions vitally affecting the joint life of the Church and the country. Especially valuable was the urgent appeal for closer watchfulness over the immigrant, and a more thoroughly organized service to him. The widespread destruction abroad will send a new wave of immigrants to this country; and we have not only to deal intelligently with these immigrants, but with the far-reaching impulses of cosmopolitanism. Race prejudice continuing in this country may have a very serious meaning for the Nation, and it is impossible to escape the fact that the most

potent influence in keeping race prejudice alive in American communities is religion; and the deepening of religious activity may, under certain conditions, increase the difficulties of the problem. There is demanded, therefore, constructive human fellowship between the Christian churches and the immigrant. The immigrant must be brought up

to the standards and into the associations that make American patriots. In a word, we must make the immigrants our neighbors if we are going to allow them to share our destiny.

Attention was called to the fact that St. Bartholomew's Parish, in New York, has for many years maintained the work in Chinese, Swedish, German, and Armenian congregations with foreign ministers in the churches; but children trained in this way have not come into the American Church. Bishop Greer is deeply interested in the use of the chapels at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine as centers of work among the foreign peoples of the city, with a definite object of bringing the foreign children as quickly as possible to membership in English-speaking parishes.

The discussion of the religious problems in schools and colleges evidenced the growing conviction that the religious element must in some way be emphasized in education in this country. The need of college churches in the great academic centers, especially in the universities of the West, was emphasized. The "Relation of Christianity and the War" brought out the expression that the war was "a stupendous example of misdirected, misinformed self-sacrifice." The Rev. Mr. Shipman, formerly chaplain at West Point, declared that peace in the hearts of men and among the nations is one of the essential features of the kingdom of which Christ laid the foundations; but that he put righteousness first, not peace. There can be no peace while unrighteousness has the upper hand.

THE PANAMA EXPOSITION

President Morse, of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, has asked the Mayor of New York to lend assistance in silencing rumors which have spread throughout the country that, on account of the war, the Exposition is to be postponed. Mr. Morse says that, notwithstanding the war, the exhibitions from foreign nations will be as impor.ant and as numerous as ever; that at least ninety-five per cent of these nations have already completed their arrangements

for exhibition; and that their applications request the use of more space than can be assigned to them. The rumors of postponement are entirely without foundation.

The Exposition ought to be more largely attended than any of its predecessors. Travel to Europe will be reduced to a minimum. Indeed, if the war continues, it is likely to be almost negligible in comparison with its volume in previous years. Many Americans who are familiar with Europe and unfamiliar with their country out of their immediate neighborhoods will now have their attention directed to the scenery and civilization of their own country. The Exposition will be a focal point for Americans from every section from Maine to California. Overlooking the superb Bay of San Francisco, it is in a way a key to some of the most impressive scenery on the continent.

Either going to it or coming from it, most Americans will have the opportunity of seeing the Grand Canyon, which in point of scale and sublimity holds a place by itself in the scenery of the globe; while the Yosemite Valley, less sublime, but on a great scale also and of a singular beauty, is easily accessible from San Francisco. These impressive landscapes are only two features among the many things which Americans from easterly points can see on a journey to the Pacific Coast. Entirely aside from the display which it will make of the art and industry of the world, the Exposition ought to be an immense educational influence in the development of National feeling and in familiarizing Americans with their own country.

It is gratifying to know that the Japanese. exhibit will be one of the most complete on the Exposition grounds, and it is hardly necessary to say that it will be one of the most artistic and beautiful.

THE RAPID ADVANCE OF PRISON REFORM

The latest and most important testimony of the year as to the rapid advance of prison reform was presented by the recent meeting of the American Prison Association at St. Paul last month. This annual Conference brings together the wardens of prisons, the superintendents of reformatories, and the managers and directors of all manner of corrective institutions, both public and private. It was very evident from the tone of the Conference that many old and harsh theories of prison discipline and administration are giving way

663

to a newer and more liberal philosophy of punishment. Wardens and superintendents vied with each other in St. Paul in the recounting of successful and even hazardous experiments with the honor system, and the dominant note of the Conference was, not only that a "man's a man for a' that," but that the man inside the walls deserves recreation within proper measure, consideration of his intellect and his loyalty, and, within reasonable limits, a share in the minor governmental affairs of the prison's daily life.

The persistent and thorough study of individual inmates, with the compilation of personal histories reaching back to early life and continuing into and during the full period of parole, was urged particularly by representatives of the Massachusetts Reformatory Prison for Women, where already very complete records are kept, not for the sake of keeping records, but for the sake of saving souls.

Finally, the question of the revision of prison architecture was raised, and it was asked whether the huge cell block and the high wall are not passing, before the smallgroup plan of housing inmates and the wallless prison camps with their healthier and more cheerful dormitories.

On one day of the session the most modern and complete example of the American prison of to-day was practically formally opened at Stillwater, Minnesota, by the excursion thereto of several hundred members of the Conference.

DEMOCRACY AND MILITARY PREPARATION; THE IDEAL

Those who define a soldier as "a man trained to kill some little girl's papa" may naturally contend that in a democracy there can be no "ideal of " military preparation." On the other hand, those who contend that war will always and rightly remain an inevitable corollary of human existence may as easily assert that a democracy is incapable of scientifically preparing for war.

Between the position assumed by the extreme pacifists and that taken by Friedrich von Bernhardi there is indeed a great gulf fixed-a gulf, by the way, into which The Outlook sees no need of stumbling. We believe that as much is to be feared from what may be properly called "the religion of dishonor as from what ex-President Eliot also

castigates under the name of the "religion of valor." No one has stated this more clearly than President Eliot himself, in his recent open letter to the New York "Times:"

"Extreme pacifists shrink from fighting hell with hell and advise submission to outrage, or at least taking the risk of being forced into resigned submission. The believers in the religion of valor, on the other hand, proclaim that war is a good thing in itself, that it invigorates a nation become flaccid through ease and luxury and puts in command the strong, dominating spirit of a valid nation or race. What is the just, mean between these two extremes? Is it not that war is always a hideous and hateful evil, but that a nation may sometimes find it to be the least of two evils between which it has to choose? The justifiable and indeed necessary war is the war against the ravager and destroyer, the enemy of liberty, the claimant of world empire. More and more the thinkers of the world see, and the common people more and more believe instinctively, that the cause of righteous liberty is the cause of civilization."

It is because The Outlook believes that righteous liberty in this world demands more than the mere lip service of our great democracy, that righteous liberty in the end can be obtained only through the spread of the democratic ideal for which this Nation stands, and that the spread of this ideal depends not only upon the desire and the will but also upon the power of our people, that we have long advocated the adequate military preparation of our American democracy. We believe that those who seek international righteousness through national impotence are brothers to those who might hope to abolish individual murder by.abolishing the civil police, or fires by the abolition of insurance.

If we grant, then, that in the present state of our civilization military preparation is a vital necessity to and a normal function of a just democracy, there remain two practical questions: What are the obvious demands which this military preparation must stand ready to answer? How can we best harmonize this necessary preparation with the material means and the spiritual genius of our Nation? The first of these questions is one which in detail must be left to the decision of the technical experts in the two arms of the service. It is one, however, upon which The Outlook hopes in future editorials to present such authoritative information as it

The second of these two questions is one which more intimately concerns the individual citizens of this country, and one in the solution of which his political voice will have weight-and possibly value. Neither question can here, however, be intelligibly discussed without a brief definition of the problem that daily faces the military experts of our army and navy.

A

This problem has been defined by our military authorities somewhat as follows: The geographical position and the political responsibilities of our country indicate that to maintain our policies and protect our interests at home and abroad we require both an adequate navy and a well-organized and sufficient army. The function of the first is to secure and maintain the command of the sea. To accomplish this, its strategic value must not be destroyed by depending upon it for the immediate defense of our coasts. The use of any part of our fleet for this local purpose defeats the chief object of naval power. fleet unsupported by an army is unable to secure the fruits of naval victory; a fleet defeated at sea is powerless to prevent invasion. The solution of the problem of national defense lies, therefore, in the provision of suitable land and sea forces and in a due recognition of their co-ordinate relations. Furthermore, in determining the organization of the land forces of the United States, it must be borne in mind that these forces are, and must be, divided into two distinct parts. First, the army on service beyond the territorial limits of the United States, in Panama, the Philippines, and Hawaii; second, the army within the territorial limits of the United States. The first, since in time of war it cannot be reinforced, must be constantly maintained at a strength sufficient for its expected task, and upon a full war basis. The standing army within the territorial limits of the United States must be prepared to meet the first threat of an invasion, and must furthermore be definitely organized with a view to ultimate expansion into such a system of trained reserve forces as our National interests in war time may require.

In loyally supporting the officers of our army and navy in their efforts to find a solution for these difficult problems, the question which The Outlook raised in its editorial of last week may again be properly asked-Will the solution of this problem require us to depart from the traditional military policy of the United States? Unless a fulfillment of this

1914

PUBLIC LIBRARY

policy may be defined as a departure from it, the answer must be, No. In theory we have given our coasts to the protection of a navy adequate to the safeguarding of our National interests. In practice we have depended upon a navy of fluctuating importance and efficiency. In theory we have voiced our belief in a small standing army and the ability of our citizens themselves to bear the ultimate brunt of foreign aggression. In practice we have at times permitted this small standing army to lapse into innocuous insignificance, and have failed, with a consistency worthy of a better cause, in providing for the organization of our constitutional militia into any kind of a definite and dependable military reserve.

It is to be remembered (a fact sometimes forgotten) that all able-bodied men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five are by our Constitution subject to military duty, and theoretically a part of our National defense. Those who are at all familiar with our military history, however, know all too well how remote is this theory from the fact. It may not be too much of a digression in this connection to quote from some of Washington's letters to Congress during the Revolution. The problem that confronted him at this time was one which confronted the Union and Confederate commanders at Bull Run, a battle which left the victors only less disorganized than the vanquished. It is one which would confront any present-day general who should attempt to repel an invasion with our still legally existent, but still largely unorganized, militia.

Washington wrote on September 2, 1776, to the President of Congress as to the causes of defeat at the Battle of Long Island: "The militia, instead of calling forth their utmost efforts to brave and manly opposition in order to repair our losses, are dismayed, intractable, and impatient to return. Great numbers have gone offin some instances almost by whole regiments, by half ones, and by companies at a time." And again, later, he writes: place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken зtaff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life, unaccustomed to the din of arms, totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill (which is followed by want of confidence in themselves when opposed by troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in arms),

"To

665

are timid and ready to fly from their own shadows."

After five years of experience Washington voices his opinion as to the cost of our devotion to the idea that a man plus a gun equals a soldier. He wrote: "Had we formed a permanent army in the beginning which . . . had been capable of discipline we never should have had to retreat with a handful of men across the Delaware in 1776 trembling for the fate of America. We should not have been under the necessity. . of fighting Brandywine with an unequal number of raw troops, and afterwards seeing Philadelphia fall a prey to a victorious army. We should not have been at Valley Forge destitute of everything, in a situation neither to resist nor to retire. We should not have been the greatest part of the war inferior to the enemy, indebted for our safety to their inactivity, enduring frequently the mortification of seeing opportunities to ruin them pass for want of a force which the country was able to afford, and of seeing the country ravaged, our towns burnt, the inhabitants plundered, abused, murdered with impunity from the same cause."

...

In remedying such a condition as Washington thus described in words that still ring true after the passage of a century, there exists for the United States not only a paramount duty, but a paramount opportunity and inspiration.

Through the solution of this problem and the realization of an ideal often professed but never fulfilled, there exists for us a mine of character development that until to-day has been left virtually untouched.

Through the effort to obtain for our country a vertebrate military policy there can be likewise obtained for our people a social efficiency, a discipline, a sense of international responsibility that, guarded and guided by our instinctive faith in the ultimate triumph of justice, will do much to hasten the day of "the parliament of man and the federation of the world."

Though it is by this larger ambition, perhaps, that the plea for military preparation may ultimately find its most adequate justification, the more immediate effects of such an effort are not to be lightly ignored. The sense of social solidarity that comes from the assumption of a just responsibility, the mental training, the physical benefit that will result from a proper and democratic utilization of our potential resources for defense, all these

are phases of the question that crowd forward for discussion, and most of which form an inevitable corollary to the production of an adequate military reserve. The principles and methods by which this reserve can and must be organized we leave to a later editorial.

THE PROBLEM OF VERA
CRUZ

The chaotic condition of Mexican affairs, political and military-and, unhappily, the two terms are in this case almost synonymouswill soon compel the United States to face the large question of formulating a consistent theory regarding its future policy toward Mexico. Meanwhile the immediate, specific question as to our withdrawal from Vera Cruz has demanded solution.

Almost four months after Huerta's resignation it was officially announced at Washington that our troops would be sent home on November 23. Unless for the second time a change is made in the plan of withdrawal, the evacuation will have taken place before these lines are read.

What reason justified or made necessary our continued military occupation of Vera Cruz for those four months which does not exist now? The fall of Huerta admittedly did away with our demand of reparation for an insult to our flag. It also removed the argument for retention of troops in support of the Administration's "Huerta must go policy. If the presence of troops at Vera Cruz has been of use in protecting American and foreign life and property, what good reason is there to suppose that such need has ceased to exist? The same question may be asked as to the Administration's proper demand for assurance that Mexican authorities shall not reimpose taxes on Vera Cruz already collected by the United States, and that Mexicans who have helped in local government under our authority shall not be persecuted. Carranza has given this assurance in a reluctant and half-hearted way, but who knows whether he will control Vera Cruz next week? Gutierrez, recognized as Provisional President by Villa, but denounced by Carranza as a "rebel," has made an excellent general statement of his purpose to protect life and property; but if he or Villa has made specific pledges on the points raised by our Government, we have failed to see those promises.

As we write the future of Vera Cruz is as doubtful as that of Mexico at large-and that is saying a great deal. Even if last week's apparently opéra bouffe proposal is carried out, and Villa and Carranza, whose forces are drawing ominously nearer one another in battle array, should leave the country and meet in Havana-even if this comes to pass (and no one dare predict what may not come to pass in Mexico), the fate of Vera Cruz is uncertain.

The real and sound reason for continuing our forces in Vera Cruz after the fall of Huerta is as forcible to-day as it was on July 17, when Huerta resigned. It is that our Government ought not to relax its hold or influence on Mexico until a government is established there which it is willing to recognize at least as the de facto ruler of the country. We have an enormous responsibility as regards Mexico-under the Monroe Doctrine, for the security of our own citizens in Mexico, and because it is of vital importance to our own future that Mexico should be at peace and should advance toward self-government. In partícular, we are responsible for Mexico because it is due to our influence that Huerta has gone and that Mexico is in the hands of the so-called Constitutionalists, divided as they are between rival leaders. Vera Cruz is an outpost of American influence; to abandon it under the present condition of turbulence and factional warfare is a blunder.

A SOCIALIST BISHOP

Bishop Spalding, of the Episcopal Missionary District of Utah, who was recently killed by the reckless driving of an automobile in Salt Lake City, was in the prime of his life, a man of unusual vigor, of courage and devotion. He was near-sighted, and was crossing the street in front of his house to mail some letters when a powerful motor driven by a young girl struck him and killed him instantly. The manner of his going was in a sense a matter of indifference to him; but it has involved a tragic loss, not only to the Church, but to the country, and especially to Utah.

At a memorial meeting recently held in Salt Lake City men of every creed expressed their gratitude for the service which he had rendered, one of the most appreciative tributes coming from a prominent Mormon. The character of Bishop Spalding may be inferred from the statement that he was the