1916

357

THE LINE OF DUTY AND THE LINE OF LEAST RESISTANCE Many Americans are wondering what is the real issue in this campaign. Their minds are confused. Political principles seem obscured by a multitude of unrelated questions. The Presidential campaign seems to some to consist merely in a contest between two men, and the question at issue which of the two men the individual voter personally prefers; to others, the chief issue seems to be the Eight-Hour Law; to others, the chance of our embroilment in the world war; to others, Preparedness; to still others, the tariff question; and to a very large number, our policy toward Mexico. In addition, there are other issues tending to complicate the situation-the issue of the Philippines, of Colombia, of the merit system in the civil service, of our relations to Japan, and so on almost without limit.

Not one of these is the real question which the country is to decide on November 7. Rather, all of these are parts of the one great question-Which path shall the country follow for the next four years? Shall it be the path along the line of least resistance, or shall it be the path along the line of duty?

The present Administration under President Wilson has followed the line of least resistance.

In the matter of Preparedness, the line of least resistance has meant a swinging from one extreme of opposition to the movement for National security to the other extreme of advocating the "greatest navy in the world."

When the Japanese question was raised, the Administration did not ask, What is the duty of this country toward its own citizens and toward Japan? but, rather, sent the Secretary of State to try to smooth things out so that there would be no trouble.

When the Panama tolls question was raised, the President did not lay before Congress a policy of right and of responsibility, but told Congress that unless the tolls law was repealed he would face a situation so delicate that he did not know what would happen.

When the Mexican difficulty confronted the Administration, there was no facing of the duty of protecting Americans in Mexico, but rather the adoption of a policy of "watchful waiting." To avoid trouble, the Administration first advocated that the Mexicans spill all the blood they chose, and then, when

the spilling of blood, advocated a course of stopping all revolution. The line of least resistance in Mexico led, on the one side, to the cordial approval of Villa, and then, even when Villa was compliant, to the other extreme of co-operating with Carranza against Villa. To-day the line of least resistance has led the Administration to a recognition of the Carranza Government as a sovereign government, and at the same time to the occupation of Mexican territory on the ground that the Carranza Government is not sovereign.

With reference to Colombia, the line of least resistance has involved the verbal advocacy of paying Colombia twenty-five million dollars in alleged damages, and the failure to press that proposition in the face of hostile opinion.

In our relations with the Philippines the line of least resistance has led to a policy of inviting the Filipinos to expect immediate independence, and then denying it to them.

When a railway strike threatened the Nation, the Administration did not ask, What is the right thing to do? but it waited and waited until the crisis became alarming, and then, following the line of least resistance, did the one thing it believed imperative in order to avoid calamity.

And in all the questions raised by the war in Europe the line of least resistance has meant vigorous and even bellicose words unsupported by acts.

In behalf of this policy the argument has been set forth that by pursuing it the President has "kept us out of war," has " kept us out of Mexico," has averted a great strike, has provided peace and prosperity, has put "safety first "-has, in short, on all these points enabled the United States to avoid trouble.

To this policy there is only one true alternative. Instead of the line of least resistance, the Nation in all these cases might have followed the line of duty. And the question before the country is whether it shall continue to follow the line of least resistance or shall undertake in every new question, or every recurrence of an old question, to determine what is the line of duty, and then to undertake to follow it, no matter what the resist

ance.

It has been often asked, What would President Wilson's opponents have done in his stead? That question it is impossible for

any one to answer. But it is possible to say what purpose might have been pursued in place of the purpose openly avowed by the supporters of the Administration.

In the next four years the country can on all these questions have, not the purpose of safety, of ease, of present comfort, of the avoidance of immediate trouble, but instead the purpose of duty, of honor, of obligation.

It can deal with the question of Preparedness by asking what the duty of the Nation's Government is in securing the safety of its citizens.

In our relations with Japan the Nation can ask what its duty is toward a friendly and ambitious Power that is consonant with its duty toward the preservation of this Nation's integrity and character.

If ever the question of tolls on the Panama Canal arises again, the Nation can decide that question with a view to the purpose of justice, both toward its own citizens and toward the people of other nations who use the Canal.

In the continuing Mexican problem it can determine its policy by the purpose of protecting the lives and the property of its citizens there, and of fulfilling the Nation's obligation toward other nations which have allowed it to assume responsibility for civilized conditions in its neighborhood.

When the Colombia question comes up, the Nation can decide that question in the light of its duty; and if it decides that it ought to pay the money it will insist upon paying it, and if it decides that the demand for the payment of the money is blackmail it will definitely and unequivocally refuse to pay.

In the matter of the Philippines this Nation can decline to play fast and loose with the dreams of the Filipinos, and can definitely adapt its policy to a purpose of fulfilling its own treaty obligations, protecting the Filipinos from foreign complications, and assuring to its own citizens the maintenance of their rights established through the past eighteen years.

When labor questions arise involving the National function, the Nation can face each question promptly and settle it according, not to the immediate consideration of safety, but to the rights of both parties to the controversy and the rights of the public.

And in the continuing questions or the new issues raised by the war the Nation can set aside considerations merely of comfort in

order to determine its policy according to the duty that a strong nation owes to the weak and a member of the family of nations owes to the public law of nations and to world civilization.

On the whole, President Wilson represents the policy of following the line of least resistance. On the whole, Mr. Hughes represents a policy of following the line of duty.

We wish that Mr. Hughes in his campaign had made it clearer than he has, both by his words and by his general course, that no consideration of safety, of policy, of political benefit, should stand in the way of moral conviction. But Mr. Hughes's record is not merely that which he has made in the campaign, but also that which he has made as Governor and as Justice. And in that record there is evidence that Mr. Hughes was unswerving in any course determined by obligation and public duty. His candidacy rep

resents the only alternative to the candidacy of the President, whose course has been defended, not on the ground that it has been right, but on the ground that it has been safe.

It is between these two lines-the line of least resistance and the line of duty-that the country must decide.

THE GERMAN SUBMARINE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Americans have no reason to be surprised at the transfer of submarine warfare to the waters near the coast of the United States. The German Government has said nothing and the American Government has done nothing to lead Americans to believe their coastal waters immune from such outrages as the German submarines have committed on the other side of the Atlantic. In sinking merchant vessels in the neighborhood of Nantucket and leaving their crews and, in more than one instance, passengers, including women and children, adrift in small boats on the open sea, Germany has simply continued in our neighborhood her familiar piratical methods.

If the Teutonic submarine officers in these recent instances have not been as ruthless as they or others have been in such cases as that of the Lusitania and the Arabic and the Ancona, it does not follow that they observed either the laws of warfare or the principles of humanity.

If a British cruiser at the opening of the war-before there had been any submarine torpedoings-had held up a neutral steam

1916

ship (or even a German steamship), had given the occupants of the steamship fifteen minutes to get out into their boats in the open sea, and then had sunk the vessel, this country would have been aflame with indignation. The American people at that time had not been taking counsel of their fears long enough to make them cautious in expressing their anger, nor had they become so familiar with the cold-blooded murder of non-combatants after the German method that anything less brutal seemed actually legal and humane. Now, however, if a submarine captain does not repeat the crime of the Lusitania, Americans are disposed to be thankful. We have to remind ourselves that, according to all the practices of civilized nations heretofore, and also according to the dictates of common decency, a merchant vessel is entitled to be visited and searched by a belligerent naval vessel before the question can be even raised whether she is liable to capture as a prize; that even then only special exigencies justify the war-vessel in sinking her; and then only after the ship's papers and all her passengers and crew are insured protection and safety.

By our Government's inability or disinclination to take any action putting a stop to these practices in the interest of our common civilization we have become accustomed to seeing the practices of piracy adopted as part of the naval policy of Germany and as a regular feature of German submarine warfare. Fortunately, in these recent instances American naval vessels were close at hand and picked up from open boats on the high seas American women and children as well as American men whom the German submarine commander had made castaways. This fact, however, does not lessen the nature of the crime or modify in any degree the fact that by what this German commander did non-combatant lives, including the lives of American citizens, were put in jeopardy. In the light of that fact, it is well to remember that President Wilson notified Germany that he would hold her to a "strict accountability for such acts, and would "take any steps it might be necessary to take . . . to secure to American citizens the full accomplishment of their acknowledged rights on the high seas;' that President Wilson told Germany that only resistance or attempted flight on the part of a merchantman could be regarded as any justification for the commander of a submarine" for so much as putting the lives of those on board in jeopardy ;" and that Presi

359

dent Wilson told the German Government that "the repetition by the commanders of German naval vessels of acts in contravention of these rights must be regarded by the Government of the United States, when they affect American citizens, as deliberately unfriendly."

It is also well to remember that at the beginning President Wilson declared submarine warfare on merchantmen necessarily illegal, and repeated that declaration in the following words last April:

The Government of the United States has been very patient. . . . It has become painfully evident to it that the position which it took at the very outset is inevitable—namely, the use of submarines for the destruction of an enemy's commerce is of necessity, because of the very character of the vessels employed and the very methods of attack which their employment of course involves, utterly incompatible with the principles of humanity, the long-established and incontrovertible rights of neutrals, and the sacred immunities of non-combatants.

All these words have amounted to nothing. They have made the written record of the United States fairly correct, but the outrages which they properly describe and condemn they have done nothing to prevent.

With the appearance of this submarine warfare in American waters no new question of law or of morals arises, but there does arise a new sense of danger, and, we hope, in the minds of most Americans a new sense of responsibility.

If German submarines are going to ply their nefarious trade near American ports with any degree of effectiveness, they will be practically-even if not technically-blockading our ports; they will be menacing our coastwise traffic, for no vessel can enter a zone infested by submarines without running into danger; they will be inviting reprisals by the Allied cruisers which may conceivably be directed by mistake against our own submarines; they will be necessarily dependent upon supplies which can be only obtained either from bases near our shores or from accomplices in the United States-in either case trespassing upon American forbearance; they will be adding a new affront to the United States by making more open and obvious than ever the cool German disregard of American protests.

There is no way to know at present whether Germany's purpose in doing this is merely to raise the spirits of the German people at a time when the fortunes of the

.

war are evidently going against them; or to make a real effort by a renewal of her most ruthless methods to impair the British prestige at sea and cut off in a measure British supplies; or to take a position from which she can recede at a price which the United States will be called upon to pay by some new humiliation.

Whatever Germany's purpose may be, the real question with the American people is whether this country is too feeble or too inert to offer any actual and effectual resistance; and, if it is too feeble and too inert, whether this people will rouse themselves to secure a government strong enough and active enough to make resistance, in the name and for the sake, not only of the American people, but of civilization.

SHALL WE ABOLISH THE

DEATH PENALTY?

The article on another page entitled "A Function of State" is not agreeable reading. But it is profitable reading. For the citizens of a democratic state never ought to forget that they are responsible for whatever is done in their name and by their authority. The condemned were executed in the name and by the authority of the people of the State of New York. The people are therefore responsible for the execution. We accept our share of that responsibility, and present to our readers our understanding of the question which that responsibility inevitably raises. We do not agree with the statement which Mr. White quotes from Mr. Osborne, that the taking of human life is always a sin. The state has a right to do whatever is necessary to protect the lives and property of its citizens. This is not only its right, but its duty; and this duty is to be performed, however painful it may be to tender hearts. If a mob attacks peaceful citizens traveling in a train or a trolley car, it is the duty of the police to disperse the mob and protect the citizens, and, if necessary for this purpose, to shoot, and shoot to kill. If Mexican raiders invade Texas, destroy property, and kill American citizens, it is the duty of the Nation to send soldiers to protect the citizens, and, if necessary, to shoot and kill the assailants. The fact that the loyal policeman or the loyal soldier hazards his life does not make this any less a duty. If it is right to hazard the

life of a loyal guardian to protect the lives of citizens, it is not wrong to take the life of a condemned murderer if peaceable citizens cannot otherwise be adequately protected.

Is capital punishment necessary for the protection of peaceful citizens? If necessary, capital punishment is right. If not necessary, capital punishment is wrong.

The incidents which our correspondent gives of murders perpetrated by gunmen notwithstanding the execution of Becker demonstrate that capital punishment is not a complete protection of peaceful citizens. They do not demonstrate that capital punishment is not necessary for that protection. The execution of Becker has not put an end to murder. No one supposed it would. But there is good reason to believe that his execution has effectively aided the Police Commissioner in putting into the police of New York City a new spirit and making of it a new force.

This it has not done by the deterrent power of fear. The execution of Becker revealed in the generally apathetic people of New York a stern resolve that an officer appointed to protect citizens should not use his power to murder citizens and go unpunished. It appealed not merely, not mainly, to fear; it appealed to the conscience. It was more effectual in awakening in certain classes, perhaps in all classes, an indignation against certain forms of wrong-doing than either sermons or editorials ever could have awakened. It compelled them to perceive the baseness of an act and of a moral attitude which before they had not thought of as base. It spoke louder than words. The value of capital punishment lies in the fact that it is the deliberate judgment of the community that man may commit a crime so monstrous that he is no longer worthy to live.

The precept, "Abhor that which is evil," appeals to the universal conscience. All manly men do abhor that which they see to be evil. That abhorrence will and must find some expression proportioned to the public estimate of the crime committed. When a mob hangs a man guilty of criminal as

sault upon a woman, the wrath which

inspires them is evil, because it is an unregulated and uncontrolled wrath. But it indicates a moral sense superior to apathy and indifference. Mobs execute capital punishment because they can act promptly, while the courts act sluggishly or not at all.

1916

To abolish capital punishment and leave the murderers of men and the violators of women to go unpunished or inadequately punished would be either to lower the moral tone of the community or to substitute private for public penalty.

Whether to-day in the State of New York capital punishment is necessary to protect the lives of its peaceable citizens is a fair question for discussion. We do not here discuss it. But the question must be determined by the reason and the conscience, not by sentiment and not by the false assumption that all killing of men is wicked. In our judgment, there are other reforms in dealing with criminals which should take precedence of the abolition of the death penalty. Among these reforms are the abolition of what is popularly called "the third degree," provision for more prompt decision by the courts in all criminal cases, and such a modification of the law as will leave the punishment of a convicted murderer to be determined by a tribunal appointed to decide whether his guilt calls · for the extremest penalty of the law.

Not

all murders involve such guilt, not all murderers have proved themselves by their crime unworthy to live.

"IT IS" VERSUS "IT MAY BE" The following letter from a citizen of Utah is typical of many which we have received:

As a consistent reader of your periodical and a progressive Republican, it is going to be very hard to vote for President Wilson this fall; but I am told by men who should know that Judge Hughes is catering to the German vote. If this is true, no patriotic American can vote for him.

If not too much trouble, would you give me your views on this matter?

It is quite true that most, if not all, of the so-called German-American newspapers in this country are opposing the election of President Wilson and supporting Mr. Hughes. It is also true that the "Courrier des Etats Unis," the well-edited French daily newspaper of New York City, is supporting Mr. Wilson and opposing Mr. Hughes. The Outlook's sympathies are against Germany and with France in the European war, yet we hope that Mr. Wilson will be defeated and that Mr. Hughes will be elected. On its face this situation is perplexing, to say the least, and we do not wonder that our correspondents are more or less confused. Neverthe

361

less, we think it is susceptible of a clear and, to us at least, convincing explanation.

The pro-Germans in this country at the beginning of the war were passionately eager to have this Nation and this Government take sides with Germany. They supported an active German propaganda. Mr. Wilson from the beginning has advocated a passive, if not a colorless, neutrality. He urged the American people to be neutral not only in act but in thought. He told the great convention in Philadelphia called by the League to Enforce Peace that this country is not concerned in the causes or sources of the war. This spirit of passive neutrality created in the pro-Germans a deep feeling of irritation, because it was in conflict with their own passionate longings.

When the Lusitania was torpedoed, the pro-Germans in this country hailed the act as a heroic and splendid achievement. Mr. Wilson has written a series of notes in which he seems to thousands of Americans to have taken the ground that it was a mistake which Germany ought to apologize for and for which she could atone by a mere disavowal. He has satisfied neither the pro-Germans nor the anti-Germans. In a word, Mr. Wilson has shared the fate of most passive neutrals in the great catastrophic conflict. It is an inviolable law of human nature, demonstrated over and over again in history, that the participants in such a conflict always regard those who are not for them as being against them. Mr. Wilson has been apparently for nobody-neither the French, nor the Germans, nor the Americans who lost their lives on the Lusitania. This, we think, gives the psychological explanation of the fact that so many conflicting groups in this country unite in one thing that is to say, their opposition to the course of the President. The Germans distrust him, the French distrust him, and the Americans who have been stirred to their depths by the murder of their fellowcitizens on the high seas distrust him.

While there are indications that the leaders of the pro-German party in the United States are supporting Mr. Hughes, there is not a scintilla of evidence that he has solicited that support or that he is catering to it. He has said publicly in his speeches that if elected President he will do everything in his power to protect the lives of American citizens at home and abroad. He has referred to the sinking of the Lusitania as ruthless. Two of his most notable supporters,