Victor Ridder, of the New York "StaatsZeitung," and quotations from alleged statements and letters. Nothing, however, has been elicited to show any such agreement or understanding or anything like it. That Mr. Hughes received Mr. O'Leary and some others as callers upon him, as he has received hundreds of others, is admitted. In turn, some of Mr. Hughes's supporters have charged that the Democrats, or at least certain eminent Democrats, have distinctly and definitely courted the German vote, and they have cited statements and alleged private speeches in evidence. This whole aspect of the campaign has been distasteful and not without its ominous side; but both candidates can be regarded as wholly free from any responsibility for it.

Following closely upon Mr. Wilson's speech at Shadow Lawn, and upon the reiterated charges that we have referred to, Mr. Hughes, before a large audience consisting mainly of Americans of German origin, repudiated those whose allegiance to the American flag was not complete. And the New York Times," which is a hearty supporter of Mr. Wilson and a strong opponent of Mr. Hughes, declared that this audience at Schuetzen Park, in Queens County, New York, the majority of which were of German extraction, not only showed their approval,

66

but " arose as one man and applauded.' These were Mr. Hughes's words that elicited the applause:

I want the support of every true American who believes in the principles for which I stand, whatever his race. I don't want the support of any one to whom the interest of this Nation is not supreme.

As to any person whose allegiance to our flag is not single and complete, who would not instantly champion the rights and interests of our country against any country on earth, who wants impunity for foreign aggression, or who would have the power of this Nation held captive to any foreign influence or swerved by alien machinations, let him not vote for me.

As to the claim that the issue is peace against war, Mr. Hughes said on the same occasion: "Did Vera Cruz represent peace ? It is said that a vote for me is a vote for war. A vote for me is a vote for the maintenance of American rights."

MR. ROOSEVELT AND A HECKLER

Gradually drawn into the campaign more and more, Mr. Roosevelt has been speaking in the West. At Denver he paid his respects

473

to Mr. Baker, the Secretary of War, as an amiable pacifist," and then told of some of the things that mobilization of troops under the present Administration had involved:

After ten days of maximum effort just twelve per cent of the men were started for the border. Over thirty per cent of the Guard were found to be unfit for duty. Many of the men who started for the border had never received a single day's training. . . . I know one division in which, after three months, ten per cent of the men have not received their blouses and twenty per cent have not received their rifles.

What Mr. Roosevelt had to say about this may be summarized in his own sentence: "Mr. Wilson has not only been too proud to fight, but has also been too proud to prepare.'

Mr. Roosevelt's most interesting statement, however, came out in response to a heckler. One man in the audience at Denver cried, "Hurrah for Wilson !" Mr. Roosevelt immediately turned upon him with the reply:

Yes, hurrah for Wilson and Carranza. Don't forget Woodrow's side-partner.

Hurrah for the one hundred and three babies who went down on the Lusitania.

Hurrah for the men and women murdered in Mexico.

Hurrah for Boyd and Adair and their troopers lying with their dim eyes staring upward from the Mexican desert.

Hurrah for outraged women.

Then, when you are through hurrahing for these things, think how you can be a little better American in the future.

In the course of the speech in which this interruption occurred Mr. Roosevelt referred to what Mr. Bryan has said that before there is a war every mother in this country ought to think, "Now which of my sons do I want to have go?"

"That remark shows perfectly the workings of Mr. Bryan's mind," was Mr. Roosevelt's comment. "Imagine Washington's mother saying to her son something like this: 'Now, George, my son, you are about to hazard your life for your country. Remember, my son, safety first-safety first.""

And Mr. Roosevelt continued:

Imagine the soldiers of Grant and Lee marching into battle with banners on which these words were emblazoned, "We're too proud to fight."

I say to you women of Colorado, before we have a war let every mother do her best that all expedients be used to avert it; let every mother see that our officials in Washington do not go

into it idly or unjustly. But, if war must come, then I say that every mother fit to be heir of the women of the Revolution and worthy to be the mother of real Americans ought to say to all her sons:

"Go fight for your country or don't ever show your face in your home again."

As Mr. Roosevelt passed through the street a man in the crowd shouted, "We're for you, Teddy, but not for Hughes." With a bow to his admirer, Mr. Roosevelt is reported to have said, "If you're for me, you've got to be for Hughes this year."

SECRETARY BAKER STIRS
UP A HORNET'S NEST

Secretary of War Eaker, in attempting to defend the President's Mexican policy, has stirred up a very lively hornet's nest about his head. At Jersey City, on the night of October 16, Secretary Baker, according to a stenographic report made by the New York "Tribune," said:

Some people say they cannot understand the President's Mexican policy, and I want to tell you why. They have forgotten our own history and the Declaration of Independence, and the President has not forgotten either. Why are we impatient at the Mexicans? We say they do not respect the lives and property of our people. Perhaps they don't. We say they do not pay their honest debts. They don t. We say they are a ragamuffin lot. We say their money is not any good. That's true. It is only worth two or three cents on the dollar. We say they do not respect church property. That also is true. The amazing thing is that . people never respect these things in a revolution. We had a revolution, and from the beginning to the end of that the conditions in this country were so like Mexico that it is perfectly astounding to read.

Secretary Baker then went on to tell of outrages committed by Washington's troops on the road to Valley Forge and to add that the money of the "so-called Confederation was so worthless that when they tried to make the merchants take it the latter hid their provisions in their cellars."

It never occurred to us that any comparison could be made between Washington and Villa, between the Continental Congress and the Government of the Mexican Constitutionalists. But, since an American Secretary of War has seen fit to infer that such a comparison can be made, it may perhaps be worth while to discuss it seriously.

If Secretary Baker desires information as

to the general conditions in Mexico to-day, he has only to turn to the official statement of his colleague, Secretary Lansing, in his note to Carranza after the Columbus outrage. Secretary Lansing said in that plain-spoken

For three years the Mexican Republic has been torn with civil strife; the lives of Americans and other aliens have been sacrificed; bandits have been permitted to roam at will through the territory contiguous to the United States and to seize without punishment and without effective attempt at punishment the property of Americans; while the lives of citizens of the United States who ventured to remain in Mexican territory or to return there to protect their interests have been taken, in some cases barbarously taken, and the murderers have neither been apprehended nor brought to justice.

WHAT WASHINGTON DID
TO PLUNDERERS

To compare such a state of affairs as was described in Secretary Lansing's note with the general conditions during our Revolution is as futile for partisan advantage as it is historically untrue. To think of Villa, the bloody rapist and the hero of rapists, in the same breath with the leaders of the American Revolution would almost seem impossible. It does not take any imagination to know how this murderer of men and outrager of women would have fared at the hands of Washington. We have only to turn to the history of the American Revolution to find what Washington's attitude was as expressed in black and white towards bandits and plunderers.

When General Nathanael Greene wrote to Washington and asked for permission to hang a soldier caught red-handed in the act of plunder, Washington said:

I am this moment favored with your letter of this day. I need scarcely inform you of the extreme pain and anxiety which the licentiousness of some of the soldiery has given me. Something must and shall be done, if possible, to put an effectual check to it. I entirely approve of the prompt punishment which you propose to have inflicted on the culprits in question. You will, therefore, please to order one of the soldiers detected in plundering. . . to be immediately executed.

Both General Greene's letter and Washington's answer can be found in full in General Upton's "Military Policy of the United States."

It is not surprising that Secretary Baker's

the country.

AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED
IN SANTO DOMINGO

While the Presidential campaign is under way in the United States on the issue raised by the Administration's supporters, that the President has "kept us out of war," American soldiers have been killed in another little war in Santo Domingo.

Since May 6 ten Americans have been killed in that country, not including those (among them two officers) that fell on October 24.

The duty of the United States to maintain order in Santo Domingo is undoubted, and the exercise of force when necessary to maintain order is justifiable. Whether the power of the United States was applied discreetly is a question we are not prepared to answer, but it is evident that there has been more war on the part of the United States in Santo Domingo as well as in Mexico than there was under the last two Administrations. All indications point to the conclusion that when Santo Domingo was used as a source for rewards to be given to political workers the way was opened for friction which did not exist before.

THE NATION'S CAPITAL AND
THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

Though a minor issue in the campaign, the question of the preservation of the beauty of the city of Washington is not unimportant.

Civilization is measured largely by its monuments of art. To-day Americans as well as Europeans are deploring the destruction of beautiful buildings by war and are condemn-. ing European nations for destroying those works of art. And yet we who make this criticism have not even gone so far as the European peoples, for we have not created works of art of any such value, whereas Europe is filled with such artistic monuments. Worse than that, we are creating conditions in this country that make the creation of beautiful buildings and beautiful places difficult. We have been marring our own cities.

One exception has been the city of Washington. That was planned in the time of General Washington by the great architect L'Enfant, and, though that plan has not always been followed, it has served as a pattern according to which the city has been

been revived by the late Daniel H. Burnham. And by dint of great effort on the part of people interested in art, Congress has been induced to make appropriations in carrying out this plan. But even here, where America has a notable opportunity to carry out the traditions we have inherited from the Old World, injury has been threatened.

In relation to this matter of artistic monuments and architectural and scenic development, the present Administration has made some good appointments, but it has not had a good record with reference to public buildings. Especially has it offended in the erection of a heating and power plant at a point where it will disfigure the city's beauty. Protest has been made against this by all the leading art organizations and by a large number of the most enlightened citizens of the country. The National Institute of Architects made a great effort to prevent this injury being done to the city. In this effort it received the active co-operation of the American Federation of Arts, which is a federation of many art societies. In Congress this effort secured the support of a well-known Democratic Senator, Mr. Newlands, of Nevada.

Because, however, of the opposition of Secretary McAdoo, who received the support of the President, these efforts were nullified, and the power plant is in process of erection.

Among those who have tried to prevent this injury is Mr. Howard Russell Butler, who is the President of the National Academy Association, and is a member of several of the art societies that have co-operated in this common effort. Mr. Butler has written to Mr. Hughes concerning this matter, and has received a reply in which Mr. Hughes says:

I am deeply interested in the development of Washington and in the protection of its scenic effects. I agree with you that the action of the Administration in placing the Government heating and power plant on the edge of the Washington Park development is an unpardonable offense. I am in deep sympathy with the efforts of your Association to preserve our capital from hostile enterprises of this description.

It is not surprising to find one candidate rather indifferent to this subject and the other candidate interested. Washington is a symbol of the Nation, and it is natural to find Mr. Hughes, who represents the party which, as a whole, has the keener sense of Nationalism, aware of the importance of the harm that is