Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

1914

THE WEEK

his theme, and he began with a brief sketch of the origin and history of the measure.

The three axioms on which he rested his argument were these:

support

1. That wages insufficient to health lead to disease and immorality, to the detriment of the State.

2. That women need protection against being led to work for inadequate wages.

3. That protection must be given by prohibiting them from accepting less than the living wage.

These three propositions rest. on an investigation made into actual conditions in Oregon confirmed by other investigations made in other States and other countries. This investigation sought to determine to what extent the women of the States were working for less than the necessary cost of decent living. It discovered that the majority of women investigated were working for less than the mimimum. What happened to these women? Large numbers of them were ruining their health by eating insufficiently in order to dress well enough to hold their positions. Those who had enough to eat lodged and slept under unwholesome conditions, were without sufficiently warm clothing, or were helped by a man friend. The Legislature saw that either a remedy must be provided or we must despairingly accept this situation as an inevitable evil. Since the voluntary remedies of education as to the poor economy of low wages, and unionizing the workers, had proved inadequate, the Legislature resorted to a form of legislation for which it found ample precedent elsewhere.

Mr. Brandeis closed his argument with a presentation of the successful working out of the minimum wage principle in Victoria and New Zealand over a period of eighteen years and in England since 1910.

The decision is hoped for in the course of two or three months. Upon it depends the question whether the National Consumers' League can proceed with its programme of legislation for a living wage.

THE NEW WAR IN MEXICO

Reports of engagements between the Carranza and Villa forces must be taken with a large allowance for their sources. It is beyond question that Carranza has been driven back from the town of Puebla, which lies on the railway between the capital and Vera Cruz, but there is a wide difference of

985 opinion as to the importance of the engagement which preceded this retreat. One report received by the American State Department last week asserted that Carranza's forces numbered twenty thousand, and that upon them was inflicted a severe defeat and a crushing blow. Later reports do not confirm this statement, unless it be considered confirmation that rumors continue to increase to the effect that Carranza either intends to surrender, to flee by ship from Vera Cruz, or to establish himself in Yucatan. All these reports come from Villista sources.

On the borders of the United States at Naco the situation remains threatening. General Scott, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, was in conference last week with the two Mexican commanders, General Maytorena and General Hill, leaders of the Villa and Carranza forces respectively. Our troops on the Texan side of the border have been strengthened by artillery; promises have been made by both factions that they will restrain their forces from firing across our border and thereby probably adding to the already considerable number of killed and wounded American citizens. It has even been reported that some of the Mexicans have proposed to establish a neutral zone in which no fighting should be allowed. There are obvious practical difficulties in such a

course.

So long as fighting continues close to our border the danger that hostilities will be precipitated between American and Mexican troops is serious.

A GIFT ACCEPTED

An anonymous donor a few months ago offered to the New York Public Library five thousand dollars in bonds on condition that that amount be used for the purpose of providing a marble bust of the late Mayor Gaynor, to be placed in the library building, and an engrossed copy of certain extracts from Mayor Gaynor's speeches and writings to be framed and hung up opposite the bust. The identity of this donor was not known even to the trustees of the library, and the only way by which the trustees could communicate with him was by the means he suggested the pages of The Outlook. When The Outlook announced this gift, it ventured to suggest that it was not practicable for the trustees to turn the Public Library into a sort of American Westminster Abbey; and if they could not do this, it would hardly be practi

[graphic]

cable for them to exercise discrimination in selecting candidates for such a temple of honor. The Outlook added: "A gift for the specific purpose of increasing the equipment or facilities of the Library, accompanied with the name of the one in whose memory it is made, would present quite a different question." By this announcement the donor was informed of the receipt of his offer.

In the issue for October 28 The Outlook printed an editorial statement announcing that the trustees had. declined the gift.

It is now the request of the trustees of the Library that The Outlook make a new announcement. A second letter has been received from the donor, in which it is stated that the subject has been reconsidered by him. The gift is now offered to the Library with the suggestion that it be kept as a separate fund, the income to be used to purchase books to form a memorial collection, and several suggestions are made as to the character of the collection to be formed.

Thus the gift has now become one, to use the words which we have quoted, "for the specific purpose of increasing the equipment or facilities of the library." At a meeting held on December 9 the Board of Trustees of the New York Public Library adopted a resolution to the effect that the offer "be now accepted under the conditions laid down by the donor in his second letter, received November 12, 1914, namely, that this sum be kept as a separate fund, the interest therefrom to be applied to the purchase of books on economics, sociology, or the science of government, the same to be known as the 'William Jay Gaynor Memorial Collection,; and that a book-plate be placed in each volume purchased from this fund designating it as a part of such collection, it being understood, however, that these books are not to be kept separate from other books on the same subjects; that the trustees hereby express their appreciation of the generous gift; and that notice of this action be published in The Outlook in accordance with the donor's previous request."

In acknowledging the thanks of the trustees for making these announcements The Outlook confesses that it has found it a pleasure to serve as the means of communication between the trustees and this anonymous donor, and is gratified at the

outcome.

The first duty of a government is to protect the persons and property of its citizens. If it is not equipped for rendering this service, it does not deserve to be called a government. To protect persons and property from enemies within the state it has sheriffs, constables, and police, occasionally reinforced either by a posse comitatus or by a military organization. To protect persons and property from assailants without the state it has an army and a navy. If it fails to furnish necessary protection because it is not as strong as its assailant, we do not blame it-we pity it. If it fails to furnish necessary protection because of its cowardice or carelessness, we do not pity itwe blame it.

What is liable to happen if the government is not strong enough to protect its citizens against domestic violence is illustrated by the French Revolution. What is liable to happen if it is not strong enough to protect its citizens against foreign violence is illustrated by the history of Judea in the first century, by the history of the Aztecs in Mexico in the sixteenth century, and by the history of Belgium in the twentieth century.

An individual may relinquish his rights; he may prefer to submit to injustice rather than to resist. But no one may relinquish his duties. If a citizen catches a pickpocket in the act, he may prefer to release the offender rather than to prosecute him; but if a policeman catches a pickpocket, he is recreant to his duty if he releases the criminal whom he has caught. The rights of nations differ from the rights of individuals in this important respect, that the rights of nations are generally duties. Certainly the right of a nation to protect the persons and property of its citizens is more than a right-it is a duty.

How shall a democratic state equip itself to fulfill this duty? Are there any fundamental principles by which it can be guided in seeking for an answer to this question?

Yes, one fundamental principle. Democracy is self-governing; democracy must also be self-protecting. As its presidents, governors, and mayors, its congresses, legislators, and councils, its justices and its courts, are elected, not to govern the people, but to serve as the instruments by which the people govern themselves, and are in the truest sense of the term the servants of the people, so the sheriffs, constables, police, and army are its

1914

THE ARMY FOR A DEMOCRACY

instruments for its protection, and must be so organized as to be sympathetic with the needs of the people and subject to the will of the people. This is what is meant by the statement, continually repeated, that in a democratic community the military power must be subject to the civil power. This is what is meant by the phrase, often used, though not always intelligently, "citizen soldiery." Three definitions may help us to clear thinking on this subject. They are here given, not as complete definitions, but rather as characterizations for the purpose of emphasizing an important truth:

A disorganized body of men armed for battle, but not under constituted authority, is a mob.

An organized and co-operating body of men armed for battle, and under constituted authority, is an army.

Such a body of men under constituted authority, and devoting their lives to the profession of arms, is a standing army.

A

A mob is no protection to a people. large standing army may easily become a menace to a people. The problem for democracy is, How to secure an organized body of men, under constituted authority and equipped for battle, which will furnish the protection which an unorganized body cannot furnish, and will not bring with it the menace which a large standing army will bring. Or, to restate the problem in another form: How can a self-governing community make itself also a self-protecting community?

Ten

For such self-protection, it is not enough that the individuals in the community should be familiar with the use of firearms. Eleven boys who can kick a football do not make a football team; to make a football team they must be practiced in team work. thousand men who can shoot do not make an army. They must know how to combine and co-operate under constituted authority, and must be trained in habits of prompt obedience that they may work together under one head. As a hundred men equipped with musical instruments constitute an orchestra only when they have learned how to play together under the direction of a conductor, so ten thousand men constitute an army only when they have learned how to work together under one commander.

These principles seem to us to be axiomatic; they need only to be stated to be accepted-they are self-evident: It is the first duty of government to protect persons and property; this duty in a self-governing

987

community can be safely and efficiently performed only by a system of self-protection; for such self-protection organization, co-operation, and a habit of prompt obedience to constituted authority are essential.

We do not here attempt to state, even in outline, any complete method of realizing this ideal; but we put together some suggestions gathered from various sources which may contribute toward its realization:

1. The self-governing and self-protecting community must know the facts. It must know whether it is or is not prepared to fulfill its duty of mutual protection. Ignorance is not bliss, and it is not folly to be wise.

2. That community, with us, must have a navy to co-operate in protecting the coast from invasion, to defend the rights of American citizens abroad, and to do its share in international police work.

3. It must have a professional or standing army sufficient to equip and protect its harbor and frontier defenses, to afford adequate protection to its citizens in pioneer communities, as in Porto Rico, Hawaii, the Philippines, and in regions bordering the Indian tribes, and sufficient also to fill its constitutional obligation to aid, when necessary, the State authorities in the preservation of order.

4. By making the enlistments in this army for short terms, and by constituting the men on the expiration of their enlisted term a reserve into which any soldier might be discharged on completion of his training under obligation to meet annually for a brief camp service, a citizen soldiery might well be built up ready to act in case of emergency.

5. The State militia which is equipped largely at Federal expense and trained under Federal officers, and, theoretically at least, is subject to a common standard and a common discipline, should be maintained and developed according to this general plan so that it can be practically depended upon in case of exigency.

6. Military athletics is now required of all students in agricultural colleges dependent in whole or in part upon Federal funds. Similarly, military athletics might well be required of all boys above a specified age who are educated at public expense, whether of the State or of the Nation, and opportunity for military athletics might well be given to all others. Such training should be co-ordinated and standardized.

7. The summer military camps described

[graphic]

in The Outlook for December 9 would furnish further training for volunteers who desire it. The long summer vacations of our school and college boys, now not always profitably employed, could thus be used for the making of volunteer reserve officers to the advantage both of the individual and the Nation.

8. Three things are essential in military organization-sanitation, co-operation, prompt obedience. These three things are equally essential in our modern industries. The training which we here hint at could be so adjusted that it would promote efficiency in peace no less than preparation for defensive

war.

9. To those who dread such military athletics because they fear it would create a military spirit and make a warlike Nation Switzerland furnishes an adequate answer. Switzerland's adequate equipment for defense has had no tendency to make its people warlike.

That our readers may not misunderstand us, we repeat. We lay no insistence upon details; we lay insistence only upon this: that the country should know whether it is prepared to protect persons and property from foreign assailants, and, if it is not so prepared, should prepare itself at once, not by creating a great standing or professional army, but by equipping its citizens to take their part in organized selfprotection whenever, if ever, the occasion for such self-protection shall arise.

Purposely in this article we have discussed only general principles. The question of National defense is not a proper subject for party debate or party feeling. But when the Assistant Secretary of the Navy officially states that it would take nearly thirty thousand men in addition to those already in the service to man the navy adequately in the event of war; when ex-President Taft states that Congress by unwise economies has impaired the efficiency of our navy, that our coast defenses are not adequately manned, and that our army should be increased to one hundred and twenty-five thousand men ; when the Secretary of State is reported as saying that one million men would spring up for the Nation's defense between sunrise and sunset, strangely indifferent to the fact that a million men unarmed and untrained would only be food for the enemy's powder and that the government that sent such untrained and un

1914

PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS

specific controversy, we undertake here to consider a few general principles with regard to Presidential appointments.

The provision of the United States Constitution that appointments to office shall be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, was at its adoption both practicable and wise. It was a necessary protection against the kind of political despotism exercised by the Stuarts in England, and the political corruption employed at a later date by the shrewd but unscrupulous Walpole. When the Nation consisted of thirteen States on the Atlantic seacoast, when the population was less than four million and the number of Federal appointees was relatively small, it was not impossible for the President to acquaint himself directly or through correspondents with the needs of the whole country and the qualities of men in 'various departments and localities fitted to serve it. But with a continental Republic, a population of nearly or quite a hundred million, a great increase in the functions and the departments of government, and an enormous and increasing host of public servants, it is no longer possible for the President to know adequately either the work to be done or the men best adapted to do it. The Presidents have therefore to an increasing degree left the selection of officers to the men elected by their parties either to the Senate or the House from the various sections of the country, and it is not strange that the Senators and Representatives have come gradually to regard their privilege to be consulted as a right to dictate, and the provision of the Constitution has come to be read in Congress as follows: The Senators and Representatives shall appoint the Federal officers by and with the advice and consent of the Presi dent.

If both the President and the Senators and Representatives always looked for the best man to serve the country, this amended Constitution might work fairly well; if they even always sought the best interests of their party, it might not work badly. But when the appointing power is used to build up a faction or to promote the personal political interests of the individual making the appointment-and this unhappily is often the case— it works disastrously to both the party and the country.

The Americans, like the English and unlike the French, are political pragmatists, and ⚫ are ready to adopt in politics any contrivance which works well and none which does not

989

work well. Generally the Presidents have accepted the recommendations of the Senators and Representatives, rejecting them only for cause, and then waiting for a new recommendation. In some instances they have accepted the negative advice and made new successive appointments until one was found to which the Senator of the district could make no reasonable objection. So far as we recall, they have made appointments during the recess of Congress only when the previous appointment had not been voted on by the Senate. To make such a recess appointment of one whom the Senate has rejected appears to us a clear violation of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the Constitution.

Moreover, the Constitution calls not only for the consent but also for the advice of the Senate. When the President, therefore, consults a Senator and considers his advice, he is acting constitutionally and in accordance with regular and understood practice. He is taking the counsel not of an individual but of a representative of the people. The individual may be of good character or bad; he may represent a good influence in public life or a bad influence; but, whatever his individual or political virtues may be, he is the one selected by the people and designated under the Constitution to act with reference to nominations. The President is not bound to take his advice if it is bad advice; and, if it is good advice, no matter what the character of the Senator or the political faction to which he belongs may be, there is no reason why the advice should not be taken. Let the President get his information about prospective appointees from what source he will but to substitute for the advice of the Senate the advice of a private person, or even of a member of the Cabinet, is to go outside of the recognized practice and of the provisions of the Constitution. The evil of the boss system does not lie in the fact that political bosses are worse men than other men, but that they are irresponsible. They are public men with power, but are not given the power by the people. To insist that the advice and consent of private individuals or even of a member of the Cabinet who is not a representative of the people should be followed by the Senate, even though this may be done in a good cause, is to give sanction to that which lies at the basis of boss rule.

These considerations refer not to the purposes which a President as political leader

« PredošláPokračovať »