Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

Mr. Wilson. The largest Republican plurality was that of Illinois-202,000 for Mr. Hughes.

One result of the election has been to renew doubts as to our Electoral College system. Each State has a certain number of electoral votes. New Hampshire, for instance, has four, and Minnesota twelve. It so happened that the sixteen votes of these two States were determined by 226 individual voters. New Hampshire was carried by Mr. Wilson by 57 votes. A change of 29 votes in that State from Wilson to Hughes would have made New Hampshire Republican. Minnesota was carried by Mr. Hughes by a plurality of 392 votes. A change of 197 votes from Hughes to Wilson would have made Minnesota Democratic. Such facts as these have set Senators and Representatives trying to devise new methods of electing the President. Every scheme that has been offered, however, has its disadvantages; and it is by no means clear that the disadvantages of the new schemes do not outweigh whatever defects there are in the present method.

THE GOVERNORS OF ARIZONA

At the time of the last election it was at first reported that Governor George W. P. Hunt, the Democratic candidate, had been re-elected Governor of Arizona. Later it was reported that his rival, Mr. Thomas E. Campbell, the Republican candidate, had been elected. Governor Hunt, however, still refuses to acknowledge that he has been defeated.

Though the Democratic State Committee has conceded the election of Governor Campbell, Governor Hunt has refused to turn over his office to the man who now appears to be his legally elected successor. When Governor-elect Campbell appeared at the Capitol on January 1, he found the doors of the executive offices locked, and was forced to content himself with making a formal demand for admittance and an informal speech to the great crowd in the Capitol grounds. When the crowd, growing restive, began to talk of forcing their way into the executive office, Governor Campbell wisely and justly pleaded for restraint and for leaving the solution of the political imbroglio to the courts. Such is, of course, the only proper solution to such a disconcerting ending to Arizona's close election. Mandamus proceedings have already been commenced in the Supreme Court to compel Governor Hunt to relinquish his office.

It is reported that there were three reasons why the great crowd assembled in the Capitol grounds failed to break forth in riotous disturbance. One was Governor Campbell's plea, the second was the liberal scattering of armed deputies through the crowd, and the third was the complete absence, under the new Prohibition Law, of any liquor in Phoenix, the capital of Arizona. According to the newspaper despatches, the absence of liquor in the city receives the largest part of the credit for the peaceful solution of Arizona's difficult political problem.

GENERAL GOETHALS ON THE PANAMA CANAL

On the Wednesday before Christmas Major-General G. W. Goethals, who will always be remembered as the man in charge of the construction of the Panama Canal during its later stages, gave to a gathering of members of the Merchants Association of New York some of his views on the Canal. His assurance that there was an end of trouble so far as slides are concerned was greeted with welcoming applause. Since April last, when the Canal was opened, there had been the wettest and rainiest season for years; but, in spite of that fact, which greatly increased the difficulties arising from the sliding of earth into the Canal, the engineering force had been able to keep the Canal

open.

With the end of the engineering problem there arises the question as to the policy for the maintenance, operation, and general control of the Canal and Canal Zone. Three years ago last November an interesting paper was presented at Clark University by W. D. Boyce, of Chicago, who suggested that the United States establish at the Zone what might be called a great international department store to which goods might be brought from Europe for distribution in South America. He urged that to this end the Canal Zone be made a free port, like Hongkong, in which goods could be transshipped without

payment of duty. He pictured a city extending along the Canal from ocean to ocean. In his speech before the Merchants Association General Goethals reverted to such a plan by advocating the establishment at the Canal Zone of such "warehouses and show-rooms for the manufacturers in the United States, so that we can in that way come in closer touch with Central and South America, and for the easier means of distributing our wares through those countries."

He would limit, therefore, that port to the use of the merchants and manufacturers of the United States, to "the exclu sion of the merchants and manufacturers of other countries." He suggested two reasons for thus limiting the use of the Zone as a commercial center. First, to use his words, "the United States has invested its money in that Zone, it belongs to the United States, and the United States ought to have a right to utilize it for whatever purpose it sees fit." That was the first reason, which he gave explicitly. The second he suggested by simply a passing phrase " because of the strategic value of the Canal to the United States in time of war." Evidently General Goethals believes that the establishment in the Canal Zone of foreign merchants might be a source of military weakness to the United States.

General Goethals's suggestion should be seriously and carefully discussed. That the United States has paid for the Canal is not sufficient reason for keeping the Zone for the exclusive use of American merchants and manufacturers. Though we have built the Panama Canal ourselves, we have not built it simply for ourselves. Whatever will most surely foster world trade through the Canal will most surely benefit the United States as well as the rest of the world. But if the establishment of a free port at the Canal Zone would mean a serious military weakness the United States cannot afford to consider the estab lishment of such a free port, for the Government of the United States has no right to put into jeopardy the National safety for the sake of even so great a service as a free port might render. Of the two reasons which General Goethals gives for favoring an exclusively American port at the Canal the military reason is the one that is much the more momentous and may well prove decisive.

AN AMERICAN CHAMBER MUSIC
COMPOSITION

Chamber music is commonly regarded as austere. This is partly because the most familiar form of chamber music consists of the string trio, quartette, or quintette, with or without the pianoforte, and to many even of the musically inclined the strings alone, and even with the pianoforte, seem to lack color. As a matter of fact, however, chamber music can be as colorful as orchestral music. Wind instruments, such as the horn, oboe, and clarinet, are as much in place in a room as they are in a great auditorium, and are as beautiful played singly as they are when massed with scores of other instruments.

It was to provide a medium for the performance of all kinds of chamber music that there was organized a year ago the New York Chamber Music Society, consisting of the piano, strings, and wind instruments. We commented upon its first concert in our issue of March 22, 1916. This organization, of which Miss Carolyn Beebe is director, has now entered on its second year.

On its programme last week the most interesting number was the Scherzo-Caprice by the American composer Daniel Gregory Mason. Following the placid and melodious Mozart Quintette in A Major for clarinet and strings, and preceding an almost Mozartian Serenade for flute, violins, and viola by the late Max Reger (an early work), this American Scherzo-Caprice, though flanked by two such works, actually seemed big in comparison. And when the last number on the programme, which was a quartette by the gifted French composer Chausson, was ended, there were many in the audience who would have been glad to hear the Mason Scherzo-Caprice again. Why does not some musical director allow his audience to hear a new composition twice in the course of a concert? There are some compositions that cannot stand being heard twice. Those could be sacrificed for the sake of compositions that can stand it.

Mr. Mason's composition, which is numbered Opus 14a, is scored for what might be called a chamber orchestra, consisting

of piano, flute, oboe, clarinet, French horn, bassoon, and a string quartette. It might be placed in the category half-way between strict chamber music, which emphasizes the individual instruments, and symphonic music, which emphasizes the blending of many instruments into masses of sound. To the musician Mr. Mason's work was interesting because its main theme was built upon a whole-tone scale, and its chord relations were worthy of study. The real musical interest, however, was in its substance. It was not as capricious as its name. Indeed, it had that quality for which there is no suitable term, and which for lack of a better term might be called religious. It is that quality in music that suggests space. You have it only occasionally in Mozart; you have it almost always in Beethoven, practically never in Liszt, not infrequently in Wagner, almost always in Bach and Brahms, not very much in Mendelssohn, and a good deal in Schumann; a quality which usually distinguishes most of the greatest composers from most of the minor ones; but which is lacking in some of the most famous and is occasionally to be found in the obscure.

Daniel Gregory Mason's Scherzo-Caprice, the product of an American of Americans, is much more worth hearing and preserving than many of the much-discussed modern importations from Germany or Austria, and is worthy to be placed alongside the best and soundest of the modern French compositions.

THE OMNISCIENT DRAMATIST

Perhaps no modern dramatist has more of the quality of omniscience than George Bernard Shaw. His "Great_Catherine," which was recently produced at the Maxine Elliott Theater in New York after a run of several weeks at the Neighborhood Playhouse-one of the smaller theaters which are part of the recent movement in this country for a more democratic stage—was taken off the boards at the Maxine Elliott Theater after a short run to make way for another play which had been previously scheduled. There is a chance that" Great Catherine" will come back. If so, we heartily recommend it, as well as the two other one-act pieces which were part of the same bill. One of these was a vivid piece of irony by Lord Dunsany, set in the bowels of the earth beneath the River Nile. The other was a satire on Germany and the Kaiser, with the identity of the two thinly hidden as the state of Perusalem and as the Inca thereof. In " Great Catherine," which is concerned with the adventures of a conventional young English captain at the free-andeasy Court of Russia's famous Queen, Shaw displays his gift for character discernment. The distinctively national traits of English and of Russian character are illuminated by contrast almost as clearly as if the playwright had created all Russians and all Englishmen himself. Yet near the end of the play the Man-Who-Sat-Behind-Us remarked, despairingly, "I wish some one would tell me what this is all about."

Indeed, frequently, at a Shaw play, by no means the least interesting feature is the conversation of the Man-and-HisWife-Behind-You. At "Getting Married," another Shaw play, now appearing at the Booth Theater in New York, with an excellent cast including William Faversham and Henrietta Crosman, the Man-Behind-Us remarked:

"No action. I'd rather go to the movies. No action at all." "He's always that way, dear,” replied the wife, enduringly; "but I would have spent the money to see it, anyway. I wanted to see the stars.”

In "Fanny's First Play" Shaw had so much fun with the critics that it would seem to be worth while for him to write a play about audiences of such people as the Man-and-HisWife-Behind-Us. This suggestion is free.

In truth, though, Shaw is not for many excellent people. In this class are those who are more interested in the nature of the fate of the protagonists in a play than in the effect of the blows of fate on the character of these protagonists. But to get back to "Getting Married." Here, with entire unity of time and place, in describing the eleventh-hour hesitancy of an affianced couple at plunging into marriage in the clumsy form which that institution takes under English law, Shaw says about all that there is to say on a subject of neverending interest to married men, married women, bachelors, bachelor maids, and celibates.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Perhaps in no other play is Shaw so nearly omniscient as here. His understanding of the point of view of each of his widely different characters is almost preternatural. And after each puppet has had his suggestion at reforming marriage, the suggestions including marriage for a term of years on a lawyer's contract, separate houses for man and wife, polyandry, and universal celibacy, the dramatist reveals the flaw in each reform, and ends by marrying this youth and maid under the existing law, with the strong intimation left with the audience, however, that marriage must be intelligently reformed if it is not to be unintelligently reformed in accordance with some of the suggestions which he has just put in the mouths of his dramatis personæ. Shaw's faculty, often whimsically exercised, for taking many points of view spoils him for some people. It was this quality which made the Man-Behind-Us say, "It's all confusing. The sight of many people, who are just as good as any one else, is not focused to a wide vision. They do not want to see more than they can get through a peep-hole. Unconsciously they like blinders. Shaw shows them everything and leaves them to draw their own conclusions. But he is confusing only in that the universality of life is confusing, only in that the view of a city from a tower is more confusing than the view of it from the end of a blind alley.

FOOTBALL-AND ROSES

[ocr errors]

We officially buried the football season on Thanksgiving Day, but apparently the season was not so dead as it then seemed.

On January 1, a time when the records of all good Eastern and Middle Western teams have become a part of history, and when even Southern teams have abandoned the game for the year, the University of Pennsylvania played the University of Oregon at Pasadena, California, The Western university won by a score of 14 to 0, but the game was closer than the score indicates.

During the first half the Pennsylvania eleven came within striking distance of its rival's goal line on four different occasions. All the scoring was done in the last two periods. The Pennsylvania coach says of the Oregon team that he has "seldom seen men who played with such fierceness, determination, and enthusiasm." The game was in no sense a championship affair between the East and the West, despite the splendid record which the University of Oregon made in its regular sea son and the fact that Pennsylvania in the East won its traditional "big game" with Cornell.

To Easterners perhaps the most interesting incident of the game was the fact that it was played under the auspices of Pasadena's Annual Tournament of Roses, a fête in which more than a million flowers and perhaps a hundred thousand yards of smilax were used for decoration. Football and roses sound strange in combination!

THE SCIENTIFIC LIFE

Everything from eugenics to daylight saving was discussed at the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held in New York City from December 26 to 30. At present the society has eleven thousand members, and the representatives of more than fifty separate scientific societies came together at this, the sixty-ninth, meeting of the Association.

From the point of view of the layman, as we have just hinted, the most remarkable feature of the meeting was its wide scope. Naturally the war, which has thrown its shadow over the scientific as well as over the lay world, could not be kept out of the conference. One of the most interesting speakers was Professor Jacques Loeb, head of the Department of Experimental Biology in the Rockefeller Institute. Professor Loeb attacked the theory that nations cannot remain virile without war. The statement that a nation by not going to war will lose its inherited virile virtues," said Professor Loeb, "is not supported by our present biological knowledge.'

[ocr errors]

66

Another biologist, Professor Edwin G. Conklin, of Princeton University, said that the war has given society an impetus towards Socialism and away from individualism, and added that

man is approaching the biological ideal, which is co-operation without compulsion.

What is commonly called preparedness came in for a good deal of discussion by the scientists.

John A. Stewart pointed out the importance of agricultural development to preparedness, saying, "There has got to be agricultural preparedness if Americans are to fight on full stomachs. Based on French or German preparedness, it would take America thirty years to put itself into a proper state of preparedness.

[ocr errors]

Speaking on this general subject, Dr. Frederick Kunz, retiring Vice-President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, advocated classifying the entire male population of the United States according to their fitness for the strain of war. Dr. Kunz also presented two interesting papers on the subject of daylight saving and on the subject of the introduction of the metric system into the United States, respectively. By daylight saving is meant the legalized setting back of the hands of the clock in summer in order to get more of the world's work accomplished by daylight. Since the beginning of this war Germany, Austria, England, France, Italy, Holland, and the Scandinavian countries have all taken steps to make greater use of their sunlight. The result has been a great saving. For instance, during the five months of the Sommerzeit, from April 30 to September 30, 1916, the city of Vienna is said to have saved more than 158,000,000 cubic feet of gas.

[merged small][ocr errors]

Kingsley and Maurice, the English social reformers of the middle of the nineteenth century, are being vindicated. Many years ago they proposed a scheme of co-operative industry, but their efforts did not meet with much success. Their movement did not die, however. It was taken up by workingmen's clubs, and especially by such employers of labor as Sir George Livesey, head of the South Metropolitan Gas Company, and Sir Christopher Furness, the great shipbuilder on the English northeast coast. These men distributed bonuses in a way to make their workers shareholders in the profits of the business.

In this country we have had one example of a profit-sharing plan carried out by the Ford Motor Company at Detroit in distributing an enormous sum to wage-earners through the regular pay envelopes.

During the past year the country's prosperity has risen. not far behind the rise in the cost of living, hence corporations and firms, through their larger profits, could begin 1917 by substantially aiding their workingmen to solve the question of high prices. The first day of the present year, therefore, marked an unprecedented general distribution among wage-earners, whether in the form of wage dividends, salary increases, bonuses, insurance policies, or holiday gifts. In these ways, on that day and also recently in 1916, hundreds of millions of dollars were given out by an incredible number of corporations and firms. According to figures which we take from the New York "Times," the straight salary increases average about ten per cent, the bonuses from five to fifty per cent. The bonus seems to have been the favorite method, both because it is more elastic than the wage advance and because it carries no promise for the future.

The record for wage increases doubtless goes to the United States Steel Corporation, whose 250,000 employees have shared in three salary increases, aggregating about $33,000,000, during the year; in addition, the corporation gives the employees the right to subscribe for some 35,000 shares of stock below the market price. The second place is probably taken by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, with its distribution of $6,000,000 on a graduated basis, according to length of service. Then come the General Electric Company, with its ten per cent bonus to its 50,000 employees, and the Bethlehem Steel Company, with ten per cent wage increase to its 40,000 workers; while there are similar increases by the Standard Oil Company and the Calumet and Hecla Mining Company.

Thus, as never before, is emphasis put upon co-operative industry-the reform decided on by Kingsley and Maurice as the best economic sign of their idea of brotherhood.

THE PROBLEMS OF EUROPEAN
PEACE

THE world war ought to be followed by a world peace. The war has affected all the neutral Powers, and the neutral

T

Powers are interested in securing a peace so just that it will prevent the recurrence of a world war. America may not now be able to exert any influence on conditions of peace. But Americans ought now to be forming their opinion on the question upon what terms peace must be made if it is to be a world peace.

The irreducible minimum upon which the Allies will consent to enter into peace negotiations as stated by Lloyd George is reaffirmed by the Allies in their official note: restitution, reparation, effectual guarantees. A restitution which recognizes the existence of small states, a reparation for violated rights and liberties, and an end once for all to the forces which have constituted a perpetual menace to the world, and thus an effective guarantee for its future security.

But if Germany grants all these conditions, if she evacuates France, Belgium, Poland, the Balkans, if she recognizes the right of small nations to exist, if she agrees to make reparation to Belgium, Serbia, and Poland, if she consents to such changes in her government or her armaments as shall effectually relieve Europe from the burden of militarism and guarantee it from a future war of attempted conquest-and we do not think this consent is impossible-there will still remain difficult problems to be settled by a council of the nations.

What should be the destiny of Alsace-Lorraine, of SchleswigHolstein, of Italian Austria, of Poland, of the Balkan States? The American instinct says, Let the inhabitants of those states decide their destiny by a popular vote. But is that instinct wholly right? The inhabitants ought to be consulted. But ought their decision to be final? It is said that a majority of the people of Alsace are French sympathizers, of Lorraine German sympathizers. Is the territory, then, to be divided between the two? Have their neighbors no interests to be considered, no rights to be protected? This Nation refused in 1861 to allow the Southern States to withdraw from the Union. May not France refuse to allow Lorraine, conquered by Germany in 1871, to withdraw from France? If Germany should carry on her deportation of Belgian citizens and replace them by German emigrants, would she then have a right to annex Belgium by securing the approval of the imported inhabitants? We protested in 1866 against the establishment of a French imperialism in Mexico. May not France object to the establishment of German imperialism in one-half of what half a century ago was a part of French territory?

The same questions may arise in the case of Schleswig-Holstein and of the border between Austria and Italy.

And Poland. There is now a Russian Poland, an Austrian Poland, and a German Poland. Shall they be united and made an independent kingdom? Perhaps. And yet it is certain that they are not strong enough to defend themselves against their powerful neighbors. It is by no means certain that they are competent for self-government. Their history does not indicate that they are. Shall they be given a measure of self-government and placed under the guardianship of Russia with constitutional guarantees? The history of Finland does not indicate that constitutional guarantees are any protection against Russian imperialism.

The Balkan States. It is easy to state the American ideal for them-federation. But is federation possible? After the events of the past few years, is there any well-grounded hope that Rumania and Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia, will unite to form a more powerful union, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity? Can they protect themselves from the intrigues of Rus sia and Austria-intrigues which in the past have set them by the ears? Can they be counted on to abstain from the intrigues which have incited to disturbance, and at least in one case to assassination, in the territories of their more powerful neighbors ?

The German colonies. Shall they be restored to Germany? The attempt to restore Kiaochau to Germany would involve another war. Neither China nor Japan, nor probably Russia, would consent. It would also involve the co-operation of the Allies in imposing upon an Eastern people that German impe

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

rialism which they have fought so bitterly and so successfully in the west. How about the German colonies in Africa? Treitschke in his " Politics " complains that Germany has not had her share of the "spoils " gathered by civilized nations in their work of colonization. England and France have promoted civilization, justice, education, in their colonies. What guarantee have the Allies that Germany will pursue the same policy? Has she done so in the past? Or does Treitschke truly interpret the German sentiment? Are German colonies "spoils " in the German estimation? And what will the neighboring peoples say? Will those who have expelled the German power from South Africa be ready to welcome its return?

To these questions we can give no direct and definite answer. We can only say that all just government is government for the benefit of the governed, and that therefore, in determining the future status of Alsace and Lorraine, of Schleswig-Holstein, of Italian Austria, of Poland, of the Balkan States, and of the German colonies, the fundamental question which the Powers ought to ask, the fundamental question which America ought to ask, is, What adjustment will best secure the inalienable rights of the people of these lands to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The interests of the Allies ought to be considered. But the rights of the people of the several states ought to be decisive. To sow the seeds of injustice now would be to insure a crop of wars hereafter.

The Eastern question, the perpetual plague of European politics, presents problems even more difficult. One thing to us is clear: Turkey must be expelled from Europe. She has never been a European state. She came as a conqueror, as a conqueror she has remained. She has never assimilated, never attempted to assimilate, her subject peoples. She threw down the gauntlet of defiance to Europe when she joined Germany in her attack on the liberty of European nations. She has repeated that defiance in her proclamation of January first, that she regards the Treaties of Paris of 1856 and of Berlin of 1878 as no longer binding upon her. She was driven to a narrow strip of territory bordering the Bosphorus by the first Balkan War. The work of that war must be completed, and she must be compelled to retire to Asia, whence she comes. The religious and civil rights of the Turks in Europe must be protected; but their authority to govern in Europe must be forever destroyed. The Dardanelles must be made as free a waterway as the English Channel; Russia must be given a free exit to the Mediterranean Sea. An opportunity for freedom of commerce is the right of the Russian people; to secure it to them is for the world's interest. The Russian Slavs are a great people. Shut out from the rest of the world, with no free port, their natural development repressed by an autocratic government which denies freedom of speech, of press, of assemblage, they have yet developed a national music, a national literature, a national art, national universities. They have no extensive, free public school system, but their communal village life has trained their common people in the primary arts of self-government and team work. This war has given to their democratic ambitions a great stimulus, and to their common people some glimpse of democratic ideals. Politically Russia is more absolutely autocratic than Germany; socially it is far more democratic. Virtually all intellectuals of Germany are enlisted for imperialism. The intellectuals of Russia are largely enlisted for democracy. Her people only need freedom to become a great people.

And the first step toward freedom is free commerce. Idealists condemn this age as a commercial age. But commerce is a great promoter of human brotherhood. It breaks down the barriers which an exclusive nationalism creates. It brings men together on the basis of a common interest. They cannot trade together without beginning to understand each other. They learn that different languages express the same essential ideas and ideals. The hour that makes Russia a commercial nation will be for her the dawning of a new day. It will be the beginning of her understanding of other peoples and the understanding of her by other peoples.

So much of the Eastern question is clear to us: the expulsion of Turkish power from Europe; the opening of a free exit and entrance to Russian commerce through the Mediterranean Sea. But two grave questions remain.

What shall be done to protect the lives and liberties of the

Armenians in Asiatic Turkey? The Council of Europe has proved powerless for their protection. No distant Power can act as their protector. In some way a responsible guardian must be secured for them. Russia is not an ideal guardian. But Russian protection would be better than none.

When the Turks leave Europe, what will become of Constantinople? Shall it become a Greek city? Recent history gives little encouragement for those who have hoped for this result. A Balkan city? A Balkan federation would have to precede that solution, and a Balkan federation competent to assume that responsibility seems as yet distant. A Russian city? But Constantinople is three hundred miles in an air line from the mouth of the Danube, the southernmost boundary of Russia. Could we maintain the protection of and a government over New Orleans if the rest of Louisiana were French territory? A free city under the protection of the Council of Europe? Past history gives little ground for hope in the efficiency of the Council of Europe until the dream of the twentieth century is realized in a federation of European states, compact like that of the United States or loose and flexible like that which gives coherence to the British Empire.

The war cannot end, and ought not to end, until Germany agrees to evacuate all the European territory which is now occupied by her armies, to make reparation at least to Belgium and to Serbia for the unprovoked attacks made upon them, to give adequate guarantees for the emancipation of European peoples from the burden of militarism and for their security from future wars of conquest, and a further pledge to leave the other problems raised by the war to a council of the Great Powers. In that council we hope the great neutral Powers, including the United States, will be consultants. In this article we have simply attempted to indicate the complexity of the problems with which such a council would have to deal. They will be more difficult than the military problems of the war. And they will require for their wise consideration and their just determination the best, most broad-minded and generous statesmanship which the enlightenment of the twentieth century can furnish to the world.

UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING

The Constitution of the United States in its preamble declares that one of the objects of forming the Union was to provide for the National defense, and the Constitution in express terms makes it the duty of the Federal Government to protect the States both from domestic insurrection and from invasion, and prohibits the States from engaging in war even in their own defense unless the exigency is so immediate and pressing that the State which is threatened has no time to call on the Federal Government.

Under these circumstances, that the Nation should depend upon the State militia for its defense is an extraordinary anomaly. The Government, which is required to equip itself for the defense of the Nation, is left without equipment. The States, which are forbidden to engage in war even in selfdefense, are equipped with an army, or, to speak more accurately, with forty-eight armies.

If universal military training would interfere with the pacific pursuits of the American people, that objection might conceivably justify our resorting to the militia of the States, which is organized for a totally different purpose. But in fact universal military training properly organized would promote the pacific pursuits of the American people.

It would develop a habit of prompt obedience to law. It would develop the team spirit, the habit of co-operation for a common purpose.

It would break down class barriers and put employer and employed, rich and poor, on the same level, engaged in the same undertaking, and thus greatly promote the democratic spirit. It would promote a spirit of real patriotism-a patriotism which recognizes the truth that the people owe something to the Government as well as the Government something to the people, a patriotism which would express itself, not in hearing orations, waving flags, and firing firecrackers, but in real, practical, self-denying service.

And the experience of Switzerland and Australia has proved

« PredošláPokračovať »