401*

ment of the regular army, the formation of reserves composed of men who had served as regular soldiers but had gone out of the army into civil life, and the creation of a body of citizen soldiery under Federal control. He made it clear that he did not insist upon any proportion between these three elements, or upon the form which the citizen soldiery should take; but he made it equally clear that there could be no compromise between the principle of State control of any of these forces and National control. He urged the President to make himself "the leader on this great subject."

In reply to this letter and a subsequent one, the President, on January 17, wrote that, while he had confidence in the sense of responsibility of those Congressional leaders who advocated reliance on the militia, he agreed with Mr. Garrison that "the chief thing necessary is that we should have a trained citizen reserve, and that the training, organization, and control of that reserve should be under Federal direction."

Soon thereafter the President took his Western trip, in which, by speech after speech, he advocated enlarging the army and organizing a Federal citizen soldiery, thus adding to his acceptance of Secretary Garrison's report a public pronouncement committing himself to the principle for which Mr. Garrison stood.

After his return from the West the President wrote, in reply to another letter from Mr. Garrison, that, though he was "not yet convinced "that National defense could be obtained through State troops, he felt "in duty bound to keep his mind " open to

conviction," that the Department's advocacy of "compulsory enlistment" had prejudiced the House of Representatives against the plan for a Federal citizen soldiery or "Continental Army," and that he hoped Mr. Garrison in public speech would draw carefully "the distinction between your own individual views and the views of the Administration."

Finding himself now in disagreement with his chief on a matter of principle to which he had believed his chief committed, Mr. Garrison resigned.

Incidentally it appears in the correspondence that an important contributing cause for the resignation was the President's attitude regarding the Philippines. In his controversy with Mr. Taft a few months ago Mr. Garrison had declared officially that the Administration was continuing the past policy of the United

Mr. Garrison's resignation is due, not to his disagreement with Congress, as some have mistakenly asserted, but to disagreement with the President. This is evident from the fact that Mr. Garrison took no action when the Senate passed the Philippine Bill, but did take action when the President declined to disapprove it. So with defense, Mr. Garrison's action is not because Congress seems bent on basing National defense on the militia of the several States, but because the President seems to be willing to follow the lead of Congress in this rather than to hold fast to the principle of Federal control, to which Mr. Garrison with the consent of the President had committed the Administration.

Mr. Garrison's resignation may well prove to be the greatest, the most serviceable, act of his career. It will be if it serves to awaken the country to the seriousness of the issue that caused it. National defense has been surrounded with a fog of vagueness, of a multitude of counsels through which the Nation has been groping without authoritative leadership. Mr. Garrison was unwilling to grope any longer. His withdrawal from office helps to clear the air. It helps to make clear to the people that they must decide between real preparedness and none at all.

In the light of the correspondence between Mr. Garrison and the President it is evident that Mr. Garrison has been working along a definite and well-considered policy of National defense. That policy has been based on Federal control. So long as the President held to this principle of Federal control of the National forces Mr. Garrison stayed and worked for National defense. When, however, he saw that the President was willing to consider the abandonment of that principle, Mr. Garrison saw that the underpinning of the Administration's policy, which he had worked out, was gone. To have remained

in office would have been to sacrifice that principle. principle. By sacrificing the office he may have done the one thing that will save the principle.

The leadership has passed for the time. being out of the hands of the President, who until this break occurred stood for a system of defense that is National, into the hands of those in Congress who stand for a system that is neither National nor defense. Mr. Garrison's resignation raises the warning signal so that the whole country may take heed: "Beware of shams and counterfeits."

ELIHU ROOT'S SPEECH

By all odds the most dramatic event last week in the present National crisis was the great speech of Elihu Root, exSecretary of State, ex-Secretary of War, and ex-Senator of the United States, at the Republican Convention of the State of New York, held at Carnegie Hall on Tuesday evening. It will doubtless be used as a political document in the coming political campaign, but it is very much more than a mere political document. It ought to be read by every citizen, whatever may be his party affiliations, who desires to get a clear, historic, and trustworthy statement of the course of the American Government in regard to the European war. That course was defined by Mr. Root, as follows:

"We have not been following the path of peace. We have been blindly stumbling along the road that, continued, will lead to inevitable war. Our diplomacy has dealt with symptoms and ignored causes. The great decisive question upon which our peace depends is the question whether the rule of action applied to Belgium is to be tolerated. If it is tolerated by the civilized world, this Nation will have to fight for its life. There will be no escape. That is the critical point of defense for the peace of America."

To be sure, Mr. Root devotes a large part of his speech to an eloquent protest against the course of the United States Government in Mexico, and he also refers to the economic situation of the country and the failure of the Democratic party adequately to deal with this situation. But from the extract which we print on another page it is clear that he regards the transcendent issue before the American people to-day as that exemplified in the violation of Belgium and the official

indifference of the American Government to this violation. There can be no such thing, Mr. Root believes, as being "neutral between right and wrong, neutral between justice and injustice, neutral between humanity and cruelty, neutral between liberty and oppression."

Mr. Root was Secretary of State of the United States for four years, and is one of the great figures in that distinguished office. His views of the responsibility of the United States in its foreign relations cannot be waved aside on account of political partisanship. He is one of the foremost international lawyers of the world, and his words therefore add legal authority to a moral protest. He has touched with a sure hand the real issue upon which the American people must make their final decision regarding the European war. It is the maintenance of the simple principle of human rights and human justice in international relations-the issue that is most clearly typified in the case of violated Belgium.

AMERICAN RIGHTS

Mr. Root's great speech is not the only indication that intelligent public opinion in this country will not much longer tolerate neutrality between justice and injustice. In Boston a committee of prominent citizens-among whom are William Roscoe Thayer, the distinguished biographer of the Italian patriot Cavour; Professors Josiah Royce and William E. Hocking, of Harvard University; and Drs. Richard C. Cabot and Morton Prince-have been conducting a remarkable series of public meetings, the purpose of which was to discuss the question of "The Duty of Americans in the War." Professor Hocking defined American interests in the war in the following brief but trenchant words:

If any government declares, whether by words or by acts, that its legitimate aims in the world can be gained only by aggressive war and by the ruthless crushing of small peoples, then both this nation and every other nation has a vital interest in the case.

At some of these meetings American citizens of German origin or birth accepted this definition of American interests and joined in passing the resolutions which were prepared by Mr. Herbert Parker, formerly Attorney-General of the State of Massachusetts. These resolutions declared that it is incumbent upon American citizens to make a

403

public declaration of their faith and purpose to sustain the cause of civilization; that the President should be supported in any action protecting American interests and maintaining the rightful place of the United States among the nations of the world; that any appearance of valuing commercial interests as highly as human lives is deplorable; that National neutrality does not forbid condemnation of the violation of the territorial or personal rights of small nations; that an embargo upon the export of munitions would be an act of National partisanship; and that Americans ought not to hesitate at the risk of life to defend their flag and the rights of their fellow-citizens, and to take a just part in the enforcement of those principles of humanity without which there can be no peace or justice.

In New York a group of citizens is also organized under the title of "The American Rights Committee." The Committee asserts that the great National issue now before the world is "between world domination by Prussia and the independent existence of the nations of the world-between the subjugation of the people by bureaucratic power and the freedom of the individual." "It is time," says the Committee, "for the American people to see and to understand the dangers lurking in the policy of indifference and aloofness which is urged upon them." The Committee lays down the following as the definite action which it advocates :

1. That the United States Government terminate its futile and humiliating negotiations as to submarine outrages and break off all diplomatic relations with Germany and its Allies.

2. That the United States sternly suppress all attacks on the lives and property of American citizens in aid of foreign belligerents.

3. That the United States make its naval and military establishments commensurate with its obligations to itself and others.

4. That Congress, in accordance with the American note to Austria, decline to pass any Act placing an embargo on the export of munitions of war.

Those who believe, as we do, that this country is in the midst of a period with relation to international affairs which is comparable to the Douglas-Buchanan-Lincoln period just preceding the Civil War in our domestic affairs, will applaud the work of these groups of loyal Americans in New York and Boston and will aid in obtaining a hearing and sup

port throughout the country for their work. in the interest of human rights and international justice.

JUSTICE HUGHES OUT
OF POLITICS

Because of widespread confidence in his character and admiration for his record, the name of Justice Charles E. Hughes, of the United States Supreme Court, has been constantly mentioned in connection with the Republican nomination for the Presidency; but there has been no evidence of an organized movement in behalf of his candidacy until recently. Mr. C. Bascom Slemp, the only Republican Representative from Virginia in Congress, came into the possession of a letter, however, which indicated that such an organized movement was on foot, and thereupon Mr. Slemp wrote to Justice Hughes, acquainting him with the situation, and received in reply a letter in which Justice Hughes said: "I am entirely out of politics, and I know nothing whatever of the matters to which you refer. I am totally opposed to the use of my name in connection with the nomination and selection or instruction of any delegates in my interest, either directly or indirectly."

Justice Hughes's position is an absolutely sound one.

The people do not know what Justice Hughes's opinions or convictions are regarding the greatest issues that are before the country to-day, and there is no reason why they should know. The American people do not want their judges to abandon the convictions of men who think and speak for themselves; but neither do they want their judges to become agitators and campaigners. The judge who enters a political campaign should first resign.

The Supreme Court is to the Nation what the gyroscope stabilizer is to an aeroplane. It keeps it steady. The actions and policies of the executive, whether a governor or a president, are often temporary in character, the work of one being overturned by the work of his successor. The achievements of the United States Supreme Court, on the other hand, are as nearly permanent as anything in our Government, and it is well that it is so.

And this is especially true at this time of upheaval. If what democracy achieves in the direction of humanity and justice for the great mass of the people is not imbedded in

the decisions of the courts and made a permanent part of the fiber of the country, democracy itself will not endure.

Justice Hughes is therefore right. To allow the element of change to enter into the court through political controversy would be to deprive the court of its chief usefulness. If progress toward larger liberty is to be permanent, there must be men who will sacrifice the excitements and the rewards of political careers in order to do this work of the judge. As long as he remains a Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Hughes is well advised in refraining from expressing himself on great public questions, such as preparedness and international rights, and in refusing to be thought of as a candidate for any

THE SOUTH AND THE
CHILD LABOR BILL

Naturally, the chief topic of interest at the National Child Labor Conference just held at Asheville, North Carolina, was the Keating-Owen Child Labor Bill, which, as already reported in The Outlook, has passed the lower house and is before the Senate. Out of two dramatic incidents arose a discussion which, a correspondent of The Outlook present at the Conference declares, proved that at heart the great people of the South are in sympathy with the child labor movement and have been grossly misrepresented by a strong, persistent minority who are prejudiced by special interests.

The first incident was an interchange of telegrams. One was from Mr. A. B. Carter, Secretary of the Southern Textile Association, to the National Child Labor Committee. read:

It

If conditions are as bad in Southern cotton mills as have been painted by you, something should be done for the relief of the children. Will you kindly explain to the Conference what funds have ever been expended by the National Child Labor Committee to relieve suffering or educate children whose parents are unable to send them to school? Please also explain to the Conference why the Keating Bill was so drawn by you as not to affect tenement-house work in New York, where you well know that children of five and six years of age work from twelve to fifteen hours a day under the most unfavorable conditions. If you are sincere in your desire to help humanity, why have you not given financial aid to the mill children of the South, and why are you willing for children to continue to