Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

at the outbreak of the Spanish War. General "Joe" Wheeler was one of the heroic figures of that war, and fought in 1898 under the "Star and Stripes" as gallantly as in 1861 to 1865 he fought under the "Stars and Bars." It is this National spirit a spirit which has so wonderfully united the South and North only a comparatively few years after the greatest civil strife in history-that makes "Dixie," as we recently said in these columns, the most popular, if not the most characteristic, National air in this country.

This spirit of united Nationalism is again showing itself in the Southern States to-day in a very inspiring fashion. At Clarksdale, Mississippi, the effigy of Senator Vardaman is hanging in the Cotton Exchange of that town as an evidence of the condemnation which his fellow-citizens are visiting upon him for his participation in the filibuster to defeat the arming and protection of American ships. At Bigbyville, Tennessee, so the Columbia, Tennessee," Daily Herald" informs us, more than a hundred citizens recently held a banquet at which " every denunciation of the faithless few in the United States Senate, every reference to the duty of the American Government, every appeal for victory for the Entente Allies, was greeted with loud applause."

Commenting upon these and similar instances, a member of the editorial staff of The Outlook who is now traveling through the South writes us as follows:

"The people of the South are thinking more Nationally than perhaps they have ever done before. There is much criticism of President Wilson, but nevertheless he is trusted. This combination of the National spirit and the trust in Wilson could have been used, with wise leadership, to place the citizens of this. section solidly behind the maintenance of vital American rights. As it is, the South is several jumps ahead of the President and many more ahead of the Middle West. The flame of indignation that was aroused here at the action of the Senatorial renegades is a strong indication of the possibilities of reaching the masses in the South. The Mississippi blacksmith who sent the Iron Cross to Vardaman, the mass-meetings of protest all over Vardaman's own State, the hanging of Vardaman in effigy in Clarksdale, are significant of something more than surface interest in our National welfare and our National problems. The brilliant editor of the Columbia, Tennessee, Herald' told me that the Bigbyville mass-meeting was typical of real public opinion in Maury County, one of the best and most interesting counties in Tennessee. It boasts the title of the Dimple of the Universe,' and comes nearer deserving it than almost any place I know. A large part of the country is filled with the homes of the substantial farmers whose lands are as trimly kept as an English countryside. The action of the filibustering Senators and the revelations of the Mexican plot stirred a great many of those who had not been reached before, and the danger is now that the President will permit this public opinion to leak away into another swamp of inaction. The pity of it can only be realized here among the people who are his natural supporters and his political sympathizers.'

"A NATIONAL BURGLAR ALARM"

6

The present war is distinguished from all previous wars in history by one principal physical feature-that is, the preponderance of trench warfare. The responsibility for this state of affairs rests upon the airplane. The airplane has made surprise attacks by land practically impossible.

at

What the airplane has done on land it can doj on sea. The protective usefulness of the airplane against surprise tacks from the ocean has not been generally realized in this country. We are at the brink of war with Germany. Germany's most effective weapon against us would be the submarine. Probably our most effective protection against submarine attacks on our coasts would be airplanes. Yet we have done little or nothing to secure this means of protection.

The plan put forth by the National Aerial Coast Patrol Commission ought to have immediate and serious consideration. Briefly, this plan calls for the establishment of a series of seaplane stations, not more than one hundred miles apart, from Eastport, Maine, to Brownsville, Texas, and from San Diego, California, to Cape Flattery, Washington. These stations would

be the bases for one thousand hydroaeroplanes. Such a patrol system, says Rear-Admiral Robert E. Peary, Chairman of the Commission, would be a "National burglar alarm around the country."

These seaplanes, of course, would be merely scouts to report the presence of an enemy to the squadrons of great battle planes which would "go out to shower tons of high explosives, to launch aerial torpedoes, to hail shells from their rapid-fire guns."

The airplane manufacturers of this country say that they can turn out one hundred and seventy-five machines a week. There must be developed within a year, the Commission thinks, a reserve of five thousand trained aviators, and the very men for this work, as Admiral Peary points out, are the young fishermen, sailors, and boatmen of our coasts, who know every cove and promontory, and who would hardly have to face greater danger in the manipulation of scouting seaplanes than they face as part of every day's work in fishing-smack and dory.

[graphic]

PACIFISM AND PREPAREDNESS AT HARVARD

In our picture section this week there is a photograph of a group of undergraduates at Harvard who have enrolled in the Harvard regiment as a part of their course in military science. Under the present Army Law there is provision for a Reserve Officers' Corps to be filled by men who have prepared themselves by such study in American colleges and universities. Many institutions are in this way lending aid to the country at this time. The service that can be thus rendered is invaluable, for in the creation of a citizen army there is nothing needed so much as a body of men of sufficient training to supply that citizen army with officers.

To the spirit of preparedness at Harvard, which pervades the University, the body of students, and Faculty alike, there has risen opposition. Though this opposition represents a minority, it is organized. The Harvard Union for American Neutrality has prepared a platform, and early in February placarded Cambridge with posters that summarized its platform as follows:

THE HARVARD

UNION FOR AMERICAN NEUTRALITY

BELIEVES THAT:

1. War need not follow the break with Germany.

2. War with Germany cannot establish Neutrals' rights.

3. Retaliation is not the highest form of honor.

4. Democracy demands a referendum before war. DO YOU?

As the "Harvard Alumni Bulletin " reported: "In immediate retort another placard, printed in yellow, appeared, as follows:"

THE HARVARD

UNION FOR AMERICAN NINCOMPOOPS

BELIEVES THAT:

1. This Country should invite the Kaiser to annex it. 2. The best way to aid the cause of Neutrality is by bending the knee and not by arching the back. 3. It is unladylike to stand up for our rights.

4. Demoralization demands that we should not bear

arms.

IS IT?

There are several ways of dealing with pacifism. This method has the advantage of preserving the spirit of good humor without loss of incisiveness.

GERMANY AND CARRANZA

A correspondent of The Outlook for whom we have great respect, Mr. Willard L. Simpson, a citizen of Texas, writes to us under date of February 27, protesting against an editorial

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][graphic][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

in The Outlook of February 21 which commented upon General Carranza's proposal that the neutral nations, including the United States, place an embargo on all munitions and supplies sent to the Allies. We pointed out that "if the United States should be foolish enough to fall in with Carranza's proposal it would find itself at once facing the alternative of neglecting the Monroe Doctrine or of opposing England in Mexico. What could be more to Germany's pleasure?" And we added the further comment, 66 Let Carranza not deceive himself. As a German catspaw he could undoubtedly help Germany, but in so doing he would obliterate himself."

Mr. Simpson objects to the word catspaw. He says: "It is an unjust reflection on a man whom, if you knew him personally, you would in every way esteem, especially as a man. Carranza has never been the catspaw' of men or nations, and never will be. He will never be used as the tool of designing interests. His whole record shows this."

[ocr errors]

In speaking of Carranza as a possible catspaw of Germany we meant no reflection upon his personal honor. But unfortunately there is too much evidence that Germany is bending every effort to employ the Mexican Government as her tool. The plot of Germany in Mexico discovered and announced to the world by the President of the United States proves this. The best thing that the friends of Carranza can do for him now is not to make vague and general statements in the press about his qualities, but to urge him to clear himself by his attitude and his actions from the grave suspicion which the German note, combined with his advocacy of an embargo upon all aid to the Allies, casts upon his attitude both towards the United States and towards the European war. Foreign Secretary Zimmermann does not write notes to the Canadian authorities proposing to give them Alaska and the Northwest Territory if they enter into a plot to invade the United States. The fact alone that the Foreign Secretary of Germany could write such a missive to the Mexican Government as he has shows that he at least believes that it would not be resented as an insult. The Japanese at once so resented a similar suggestion. Has Carranza yet, over his own signature and with all the authority of his position, announced that Germany has insulted him in supposing that for one minute he could entertain such an alliance with Germany? The fact is that the financial support which Germany is giving and proposes to give in larger measure to Carranza makes him very reluctant to reject any overtures from the German Government.

The German menace in Mexico is, in fact, much more serious than that of a mere political threat. Under the new Mexican Constitution, reported in these pages last week, Carranza might, with apparent consistency, lease every oil well in Mexico to German operators, on the ground that British, Dutch, and American concessions are nullified. In the past the physical power of England, Holland, and the United States would have prevented this, but to-day if the Germans and German military officers in Mexico should combine with the military forces of Carranza they can easily seize the oil fields, and thus enable Carranza to ratify his new leases. Thus a vitally important supply of crude oil and gasoline would be cut off from Great Britain and the United States. The eventual effect might be twofold. First, if Germany were beaten she might destroy the oil wells in a few hours by the use of dynamite in order to prevent their falling into the hands of her enemies. If she sues for and enters upon peace negotiations, her possession of Mexican oil territory could be used in peace bargaining exactly as she has proposed to use the territory of Belgium and northern France in peace bargaining.

If Carranza is not an accomplice of Germany in some such plan as this, he should come out in the open. The oil menace in Mexico, moreover, is so serious that we hope our Government is taking some active steps regarding it.

THE MEXICAN ELECTIONS

Because the election of Venustiano Carranza to the Presidency of Mexico had for some time prior to the event been taken as a foregone conclusion the extent of the personal triumph of the First Chief ought not to be overlooked. Carranza's elevation to the supreme Constitutional position in his country

took place just four years and twenty days after he launched his revolution against General Victoriano Huerta in the thinly populated hills of northern Mexico.

Whatever one may think of Carranza or of the cause which he represents, every one must admire the man's perseverance. A dozen times since February 19, 1913, the cause of the First Chief has seemed a pitiful dream, but the determination which his enemies call "stubbornness," and which is Carranza's best asset, has carried him to his goal.

To judge by available reports as we go to press, the Mexican elections were conducted in a way to deserve not a little praise. Even ardent Carranzistas would hardly claim that anything like a fair and free poll of the country was taken, yet no election ever held in Mexico so nearly approached the aspect of a fair election in a civilized and democratic republic as this one. The total vote for President is variously reported as between 800,000 and 2,000,000. At any rate, more Mexicans went to the polls than in any previous election in the history of their country.

Carranza is the first constitutional President that Mexico has had since Francisco Madero was chosen in 1911. Madero received more than 300,000 votes. The candidates who opposed Carranza-Fernando Iglesias Calderón and. Francisco Garciawere able to make no serious opposition. One interesting feature of the election was the victory of Señorita Herlinda Galindo, a woman suffragist. Miss Galindo was elected to the lower house of the Mexican Congress and is the first woman ever chosen for the Mexican Chamber of Deputies.

[graphic]

WAR AND LABOR

Here in America we are practically in a state of war. What is the attitude of labor?

In this connection two events of last week deserve comment. The first was the meeting in Washington of representatives of 147 trades unions, comprising about 3,000,000 workers. After many hours of debate, in which the final action was vigorously criticised by large pacifist groups, the meeting approved a document perhaps the most remarkable of its kind ever issued in this country. The document includes a protest against militarism and a distinct statement that the power and use of industrial tools is greater than the tools of war, and will in time supersede the agencies of destruction," and that organized labor should have representation in all agencies determining policies of National defense and controlling publicity. The concluding paragraphs of the statement should be quoted. They are:

66

We... hereby pledge ourselves in peace or in war, in stress or in storm, to stand unreservedly by the standards of liberty and the safety and preservation of the institutions and ideals of our Republic.

In this solemn hour of our Nation's life it is our earnest hope that our Republic may be safeguarded in its unswerving desire for peace; that our people may be spared the horrors and the burdens of war.

But, despite all our endeavors and hopes, should our country be drawn into the maelstrom of the European conflict, we, with these ideals of liberty and justice herein declared, as the indispensable basis for National policies, offer our services to our country in every field of activity to defend, safeguard, and preserve the Republic of the United States of America against its enemies, whosoever they may be, and we call upon our fellowworkers and fellow-citizens in the holy name of labor, justice, freedom, and humanity to devotedly and patriotically give like

service.

The second event, in contrast to the first, was an ominous one. It was a conditional call by the four railway brotherhoods for a strike, beginning on the night of March 17, of the freight engineers, firemen, conductors, and trainmen of certain railway systems. This is admitted to be the beginning of a plan of strikes all over the United States to give at once to train, engine, and yard employees the benefit of the Eight-Hour Law.

The fight began last summer when the four railway brotherhoods succeeded in intimidating the President and Congress into passing an Eight-Hour Law, September 2, 1916. As they also succeeded in preventing the passage of other labor measures asked by the President, one of which was an act making a strike illegal while it is being investigated, and as the next Congress unfortunately does not meet until April 16, they have

[graphic]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

a month to work without, as they think, the National Government's interference.

On November 5, 1916, the railways filed suits in the Supreme Court to test the constitutionality of the law. A decision had been expected week before last, when the Court reconvened after its recess. Last January the brotherhood promised to wait "a reasonable time" for the decision. Their present action indicates their conviction that the "reasonable time" has elapsed.

The law was to have gone into effect on January 1, 1917. The Eight-Hour Commission has kept an account which shows what the men would have earned to date under the application of the Eight-Hour Law; if the law be held valid, there is now, it is said, some $12,000,000 to the credit of the workers.

The action of the brotherhoods in setting strike machinery in motion follows the tactics pursued by them last August when, while the President was conducting negotiations, the brotherhood leaders suddenly sent out a National strike call.

Their present action is a blunder. First, they are showing contempt for the orderly processes of law, for in justice they are bound to hear what the court of final resort says before taking

action.

Second, the present time of food shortage is peculiarly not a time for such action. To shut off freight service now would mean widespread and intolerable suffering.

Third, as we are practically in a state of war and as our railways are primary instrumentalities of National defense, the Government must resist any tampering with their operation. In case of strike, the Government would have not only to take over that operation itself, but also to proceed against any men who would cripple the service. In his request for comprehensive railway legislation last summer the President specifically included an authorization by Congress to take over the roads if he believes the country's vital interests are affected. But, as with the Armed Ships Bill, we believe he has that power inherent in his office.

If the railway brotherhoods act as they have threatened to act, and as it is possible they will have acted before this issue reaches our readers, this one deed of a labor group will do much to nullify the words of the representatives of the National Conference of Trade Unions.

This is a time for National co-operation and for National unity. There must be discipline for those who resist such cooperation and such unity. This discipline, if invited by the action of any group of wage-earners, would be most appropriately administered by their fellow-workers.

MILITARY TRAINING FOR BOYS

For a year there has been opposition to the pioneer State law providing for the military training of boys of school age. The answer which the Legislature of New York State has given to that agitation of opposition is to make the law more extensive. Hereafter, if signed by the Governor, as we hope it will be, the New York law will apply not only virtually to school-boys, but also to virtually all the boys of the State.

There are many reasons for the change in the law; but one of these reasons of itself is decisive. Military training is a measure of safeguarding youth. Every citizen of military age under the Constitution and the laws is liable for military service. A law to provide for military training is a law to give those who are trained a chance for their lives. It is undemocratic and unjust to extend this safeguard to a privileged class, and especially undemocratic and unjust to extend that safeguard to a class already privileged in being able to be at school.

As a pioneer measure for establishing military training as a part of the educational system of the State, under the direction of the Military Training Commission, the Welsh-Slater Law passed last year was of National significance; but some of its specific provisions were subject to serious criticism. In its modification now it has been vastly improved. It not only extends the law so that it applies to boys who are regularly and lawfully employed in occupations for a livelihood, but it adds this important and valuable provision:

Such requirement as to military training, herein prescribed, may in the discretion of the Commission be met in part by such

vocational training or vocational experience as will, in the opinion of the Commission, specifically prepare boys of the ages named [sixteen to nineteen inclusive] for service useful to the State, in the maintenance of defense, in the promotion of public safety, in the conservation and development of the State's resources, or in the construction and maintenance of public improvements.

By this provision, which has the approval of the State Commissioner of Education, Dr. John H. Finley, New York State adopts the broadest and most enlightened view of military training. Not only does this State recognize the indispensable military value of the sort of work that is done by the mechanic in the factory-work for which in war time England has had to call her skilled mechanics back home who had been mistakenly sent to the front when their services were needed and could be utilized to much greater advantage in the making of munitions and in the maintenance of industries essential to the life of the nation-but the State also avails itself of military training as a means for the development of the human resources of the State. Of course the law provides for exemptions, as does every law in every country requiring universal military training or service. Those who are mentally or physically unfit must manifestly be exempt, and so must certain other groups for one reason or another. Apart, however, from these necessary groups, the military training law of New York now applies to all boys. Some day every State will require of all boys and all girls, physically and mentally fit, such training as will make them ready for the particular service for which each is best suited in time of war; and such a training will be sure to be one of the best means for increasing the usefulness of all citizens in times of peace.

THE LYONS FAIR

Leipsic has long been notable among German cities because of its three great annual fairs. These attracted an immense number of merchants and manufacturers from Europe and from the Near East. The fairs were held at Easter, Michaelmas, and New Year's. The average value of the sales exceeded fifty million dollars a year. But the war has put an end to the Leipsic Fair-that is, for the world at large.

During the first year of the war it was thought that perhaps the interruption would not be long. But when the second year of war began, the merchants and manufacturers in countries other than those of the Central Powers became restive, and a movement crystallized for a fair elsewhere. The city chosen was Lyons. It was a wise choice, and for three reasons: first, because of its geographical situation; second, because of the enterprise of its merchants and manufacturers; and, third, because its Mayor, M. Édouard Herriot, has displayed apparently more energy in municipal efficiency than has the mayor of any other French city. M. Herriot has now entered the French Cabinet.

A look at a map is enough to show the central situation of Lyons as regards the points of the compass. It is a little over three hundred miles southeast of Paris, and something over two hundred miles north of Marseilles. It is the largest city on the Rhone, its population being not far from half a million. It was due to the Lyons merchants, with the Mayor at their head, that their city secured the succession to the Leipsic Fair. Appropriately, M. Herriot became President of the Lyons Fair.

The first fair was held last March. It proved a brilliant success. It was attended by 1,342 merchants and manufacturers from France, Great Britain, Canada, Italy, Holland, Spain, Portugal, and Russia. They did a business of some $10,000,000 and turned away $8,000,000 for lack of facilities. The articles dealt in showed a greater variety than those at Leipsic. At Lyons one saw agricultural machines, automobiles, chemicals and chemical products, clothing, colonial products, electricity and electrical appliances, fertilizers, food products, furs, hides and skins, morocco goods, music, books, printing, stationery, toys, tools, and many other articles, which were displayed in booths extending along the six miles of embankments on the

Rhone.

At the second fair, which has just been opened, it is expected that there will be three times as much business as at the first fair.

W

HANG TOGETHER

ILLIAM JOEL STONE, the senior Senator from Missouri, has been reinstated by the Senate as Chair man of its Committee on Foreign Relations.

Is there any free people except the American people who could be made to suffer such a denial of the very principle of representative government?

Senator Stone has consistently opposed the maintenance of American rights on the high seas, and consistently acted in compliance with the ruthless warfare which Germany has waged, not only against her enemies, but against neutrals and other noncombatants.

Whether Senator Stone's course has been inspired by his deference to those who are pro-German and anti-American among his constituents, or whether it has been inspired by his own ideas as to what constitutes legality, humanity, and common morality, has nothing to do with the case. There is here involved no question of the motives, the animus, the character, of the Senator from Missouri. The only point to be considered is the fact that Senator Stone has committed himself to a foreign policy which has been repudiated by the people, opposed by the Administration, and condemned by the Senate itself. He shares with Senator La Follette and ten others the distinction of having successfully withstood the demand of the President, Congress, and the country for an adequate measure for resisting German aggression against the United States. He, the arch opponent of the Nation's foreign policy, has been put by the very men who have repudiated his attitude into the position of the Senate's leader on foreign affairs.

That such action should be possible is monstrous.

Against this action there should be from every quarter of the country such a protest that the Senate would be forced to come to its senses.

At present the Senate is not in its senses. It is not following reason or common sense. It is simply following tradition.

Of all the Democratic Senators who have served on the Committee on Foreign Relations, William Joel Stone, of Missouri, has served for the longest period. That fact is the sole qualification for his Chairmanship of that Committee. It ought to be disqualification in such a case as his for even membership in the Committee. The man who comes new into the Senate, without experience, without knowledge of public questions, and who innocently or ignorantly takes a position on an overshadowing public question that is contrary to the will of the country, to the will of the Administration, to the will of the Senate-to say nothing of the interests of his Nation-might be allowed to serve on the Committee dealing with that question in order that he might himself become educated. But this is the very reverse of the case of Senator Stone. He has not the excuse of inexperience. His decision to run counter to the will of the country, the will of the Administration, and the will of the Senate is deliberate; it is based on experience; it has been reached after long acquaintance with the problems involved and with what the country thinks of those problems. His seniority, so far from being a reason for making Senator Stone Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, is a reason which might be cited in justification of the Senate if it refused to place him on the Committee at all.

What has happened in the Senate may conceivably happen in the forthcoming House of Representatives. If the House is organized by the Republicans, the Chairmanship of its Committee on Foreign Affairs may be assigned to the man who happens to be the senior member of that Committee on the Republican side, Mr. Cooper, of Wisconsin. Mr. Cooper is, like Senator Stone, an opponent of his country's foreign policy and a supporter of the policy of those who have tried to weaken and manacle this country to the great benefit of Germany. The House is not bound by tradition, as the Senate is. Mr. Cooper himself can bear testimony to the fact that a man may be displaced in the House because he is not in sympathy with his party's or his country's policy. When the Philippines question was uppermost, Mr. Cooper, who was in the line for the Chairmanship of the Committee on Insular Affairs, was put one side. He should be put aside again. It would not only be ridiculous, it would be dangerous, to have in each house of Congress at the

head of its Foreign Affairs Committees a man whose attitude on foreign affairs his country had repudiated.

of

There is one way by which the danger involved in this form misrepresentative government can be avoided:

Let both houses of Congress be reorganized on a new and a National basis. In the presence of a foreign danger, as we have before pointed out, democracy in France and in England has protected itself by disregarding party divisions and mobilizing its political forces against the nation's common enemy. This is what democracy should do in America. Let the real majority in each house govern. Let all the men, without regard to party, constituting unquestionably a majority of each house, who believe that it is the Government's first duty to protect the Nation's citizens at home, abroad, and on the high seas, and to defend its obligations and observe its word of honor, get together and unite on common parliamentary leaders and committee chairmen; and so long as this foreign crisis lasts and the dangers from a foreign foe continue let them stand together and act together as becomes men and patriots.

We suggest that American voters in all parts of the country, by telegraph and mail, urge this non-partisan union upon their Senators and Representatives.

RESIST NOT EVIL

THE PACIFIST DOCTRINE AND ITS FALLACY We have received several letters recently from pacifists setting forth the doctrine of non-resistance. We print the following from the pastor of the Moravian Church at Port Washington, Ohio, as a typical, courteous, and sincere expression of this doctrine:

To the Editors of The Outlook:

The editorial on "Three Pacifists" in the issue of February 28 was rather incomplete. The three examples held up to scor were taken from the New Testament, but the writer failed to mention the central character in that deservedly well-known book.

Among other things, Jesus Christ said: "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God;" and "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven." When Jesus was attacked by enemies and one of his friends "drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear," Jesus said to him, "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Other sayings could be cited which indicate strongly that Jesus was opposed to reliance on force or arbitrament by force.

If you wish to quote the New Testament in defense of your opinions, you should not ignore the words of Jesus Christ, whether you agree with him or not. By common consent he is its supreme authority. (Rev.) ROLAND BAHNSEN.

Similar views, fine in spirit but faulty in reasoning, are expressed in an advertisement published on another page by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in America.

It is certain that Jesus did not teach that we are not to resist evil by right means, since his whole life was spent in resisting evil, and by his resistance he aroused the anger of those whose wrong-doing he combated and laid down his life as a sacrifice to their anger. Nor did he mean that force cannot be used in resisting evil, since he himself used force on two noteworthy occa sions, once at the beginning and once at the end of his ministry. A corrupt ring had taken possession of the outer court of the Temple. He drove them from the court with such force as to overset the tables of the money-changers, and with a whip, the symbol, if not the instrument, of his physical power. At the end of his ministry, when the Temple police came to arrest him, he put himself between the police and his disciples, and the police, it is said, when confronted by him fell backward to the ground. Whether the force which literally knocked them down was moral or physical, natural or supernatural, is not material. The

« PredošláPokračovať »