shared by the neutral Powers, headed by the United States, for their failure to protest when this initial wrong was committed. In the case of the United States additional responsibility rests upon it because its lack of influence for justice and peace during the last sixteen months has been largely due to the course of timid and unworthy abandonment of duty which it has followed for nearly five years as regards Mexico.

Such deeds as have been done by the nominally Christian Powers in Europe, from the invasion of Belgium by Germany to the killing of Miss Cavell by the German Government, things done wholesale, things done retail, have been such as we had hoped would never again occur in civilized warfare. . .

For all of this the pacifists who dare not speak for righteousness, and who possess such an unpleasant and evil prominence in the United States, must share the responsibility with the most brutal type of militarists. .

Wrong-doing will be stopped only by men who are brave as well as just, who put honor above safety, who are true to a lofty ideal of duty, who prepare in advance to make their strength effective, and who shrink from no hazard, not even the final hazard of war, if necessary, in order to serve the great cause of righteousness. When our people take this stand, we will also be able effectively to take a stand in international matters which shall prevent such cataclysms of wrong as have been witnessed in Belgium and on an even greater scale in Armenia.

In these words Mr. Roosevelt expresses a view that is latent in America, though it has not been expressed by America's official leaders. It is, after all, upon the opinion of its official leaders that a Nation of one hundred millions is dependent in large measure for the crystallization of public opinion and National spirit.

THE TAFT-GARRISON

CONTROVERSY ABOUT

THE PHILIPPINES

Roused by criticism expressed by ex-President Taft, Mr. Garrison, the present Secretary of War, has come to the defense of the Administration's record in the Philippines. In the course of that defense Mr. Garrison has accused Mr. Taft of being actuated by partisanship.

It happens that recently Mr. Taft wrote the Introduction to a book written by a former member of the Philippine Department of Education. Secretary Garrison now reports that this author, who in his book was critical of the Administration, has written a letter to the Chief of the Bureau of Insular Affairs, offering to write articles favorable to

the Administration. This, as Mr. Taft freely admits, seriously impairs the author's credibility. "A sickening sense of shame must have overcome Mr. Taft when he realized where his blind partisanship in this matter has led him," says Secretary Garrison.

Such a charge of partisanship does not, however, lead anywhere. The question still remains, whatever the motives of the charges may have been, Are they true? Secretary Garrison has entered a general denial, in the course of which he says: The Government instituted in the islands by the United States was conceived in the best spirit, and has in the main been carried out in the most worthy way;" and that "that Government has been continued in the same spirit by the present Administration, and conditions, governmentally considered, were never better than they are in the Philippine Islands to-day." He goes further, and says that the Jones Bill, supported by the Administration, is "exactly

in line with all that has heretofore been done in the islands," and that even the preamble of that bill, assuring independence to the Philippines, simply "repeated in concrete language that which has been substantially stated to be the position of this country from the time of President McKinley on down."

To this Mr. Taft has replied at length in a statement prepared immediately upon the publication of Secretary Garrison's statement. In the course of this reply to Secretary Garrison's general denials, ex-President Taft alleges certain very specific facts, some of which are undeniable.

The Philippine Islands had become unprecedentedly prosperous at the close of the last Administration, says Mr. Taft, and the insular revenues had increased steadily and were expended mainly in the maintenance of public order, the preservation of public health, in the improvement of the means of communication, and in the education of the people. Only a few Filipino politicians and a few newspapers controlled by them were clamoring for a change. The policy of the Administrations of McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft was to train the Filipinos in self-government, but at no time had Mr. Taft, as has been alleged, said anything inconsistent with his repeated statements that the Filipinos would not be ready for self-government for a generation or more; and throughout the policy. at Washington was to deprecate any change. that would mislead the Filipinos into thinking

independence near at hand or would increase the power of Filipino politicians.

MR. TAFT ON DEMOCRATIC
COLONIAL POLICY

Mr. Taft says that on the coming in of the Democratic Administration the Governor of the islands, W. Cameron Forbes, was ousted by cable depatch, and his successor, Mr. Harrison, was sworn in as Governor while yet at Washington. Mr. Harrison has said in a speech that his appointment was due to Manuel Quezon, the Filipino Delegate in Congress.

Following the appointment of Mr. Harrison there were dismissals of experienced men in the Philippine Government. Many of these men are named by Mr. Taft, including Vice-Governor Gilbert, Commissioner Worcester, Mr. Sleeper, the Director of Public Lands, the Chief of Police of Manila, the Captain of Police, and, perhaps most important of all, Mr. Frank Carpenter, whose duty it was to scrutinize and supervise the provincial and municipal governments composed of Filipinos. Furthermore, there were resignations due to cuts in salary and to uncertainty of tenure. Mr. Taft then enumerated some of the consequences, notably, for example, the result of cutting the appropriation of the Bureau of Agriculture. As a result of that, combined with the change in personnel, including the dropping of scores of cattle inspectors and other changes, there was an enormous increase in rinderpest among the cattle. Mr. Taft takes up the effect on the Administration of the Bureau of Public Lands, on Internal Revenue, on the Bureau of Science, and so on.

These facts cannot be dismissed by general denials or by charges of partisanship against those who allege them. Unfortunately, Secretary Garrison has put himself at a disadvantage by stating what seems to us to be clearly not the fact-namely, that the Government of the Philippines has been continued in the same spirit in which it was conceived and carried on by the former Administration. The summary dismissal of Governor Forbes to make room for an inexperienced Congressman is a sufficient reply to that statement by the Secretary of War. No other Governor of the islands was ever thus treated, and no such policy as was involved in that dismissal could have made possible the success of that Government. Indeed, this violent action, altogether contrary to the principles that

have underlain every successful colonial policy, has been disappointing not only to American observers but to those foreign observers who had seen in the Philippine Government a new and better era in the development of dependent peoples. The only justification for this change was that, in the opinion of the leaders of the present Democratic Administration, the whole spirit and purpose of the Republican policies in the Philippines were so wrong that they could be uprooted only by bringing in men altogether untrained in that former government and altogether unaffected by the principles of that former government. On no other ground whatever could the action of the President and those responsible for the Philippine Government at Washington be justified. To say now that the present Philippine Government is carried on in the spirit of that which preceded it is to say that which is obviously contrary to fact. We can account for Secretary Garrison's position only in one of two ways: either he does not realize what the principles were that underlay the Philippine Government from the beginning of American occupation up to 1913, or else he does not realize how subversive of those principles the course of the present Administration has been.

CARRANZA AND THE CATHOLICS

If the treatment of the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico by Carranza and his forces has not been hostile, violent, and cruel, then the heads of that Church are under a strange delusion. Thus Bishop Currier, of Matamoras, has said: "The Carranza party has proved itself the deadly enemy of the Catholic Church. The exiled bishops, the scattered priests and nuns, the desecrated churches, the general profanations, wherever Carranzistas have been, prove this, and such things continued up to the time that Carranza was recognized." And an official letter signed by two Mexican archbishops declares that published statements of "murders, tortures, outrages against the Church, the clergy, and the Sisters of Mexico are, in all their general statements, true."

It is not for the United States Government to discuss the justice of the laws which Mexican Catholics say bear hardly on the Roman Catholic Church, nor the historical reasons for the hatred of large masses of the people toward the

Church. But it is the business of the United States to know the facts as to those tortures, insults, murders, and violations which have formed part of the intolerable anarchy of Mexico, and when it indorses and recognizes one Mexican faction it should take these things into account. It is a poor answer to the questions asked by Dr. J. J. McGuire when the President's Secretary, Mr. Tumulty, replies that, as to the outrages on nuns, "there is no official record of a single proven case of this dastardly crime in the files of the Department of State." How much effort has the Administration made to secure evidence? Dr. McGuire had not specified the crime named, but had asked generally about the treatment of priests and sisters. Father R. J. Tierney, editor of "America," points out the existence of affidavits and sources of information, adding that "only recently General Alvarado issued a circular letter in Yucatan denouncing religion in a crude, ignorant fashion. Moreover, the spoliation of convents and churches and the persecution of priests and sisters have been going on merrily in Yucatan, the last State invaded by the Carranzistas." He also contradicts but does not comment on Mr. Tumulty's ingenious theory that the sisters violated may not have been in nuns' garb! This is not the first instance of the ingenuity of the present Administration in framing excuses for those against whom its indignation should flame hot.

Carranza has issued a declaration to the effect that he will preserve the religious rights of all Mexicans, but with a proviso that the laws be strictly observed, which is perfectly right in principle, but should be interpreted in view of the fact that much of the ill treatment of churches has been done under the technical plea of law. Deeds, and not words, must show Carranza's good faith as to both civic and religious liberty.

THE STRIKE

AT WILKES-BARRE

There is a serious and dangerous street railway strike in the city of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. It has been accompanied by violence in which men have been injured, property destroyed, and the public prevented from using the street cars. The facts are as follows:

The working agreement between the Wilkes-Barre Street Railway Company and

its employees expired on December 31, 1914. Negotiations were carried on between the company and the employees with regard to a new agreement, and on January 9, 1915, such an agreement was signed, which settled every question except the question of wages. The men asked for an increase of eight cents per hour, finally reducing their demand to four cents per hour, and the company offered an advance of two cents per hour. The two parties determined to arbitrate this question of wages, all other questions having been satisfactorily settled. There were to be three arbitrators-one chosen by the company, one chosen by the men, and the third chosen by the first two arbitrators. The company's arbitrator was Mr. S. D. Warriner, president of one of the large anthracite mining companies; the employees' arbitrator was Mr. T. D. Shea, a lawyer of Wilkes-Barre.

The trouble arose over the selection of the third arbitrator, and a strike ensued in April, which lasted about nine days, in which time the street railway company made no effort to run its cars. Pressure was brought to bear on both sides, and finally the third arbitrator, Dr. John Price Jackson, Commissioner of Labor of the State of Pennsylvania, was agreed upon, and the men returned to work. The Arbitration Board listened to much testimony and many arguments, and received briefs on the matter at issue in accordance with court procedure. In July last the majority of the arbitrators (Mr. Shea dissenting) made their award, which increased the wages of the men on a graduating scale a little over two cents an hour and established a profit or income sharing arrangement in which all the men participated equally. The award was made retroactive, and the company obeyed the decision and paid the men the additional wages due from January to July, which the men accepted without protest. The labor leaders, ignoring their agreement to submit to arbitration, demanded a reconsideration, which the railway company declined to accede to, insisting that the arbitration award was final. The leaders of the employees brought some. kind of pressure to bear, believed by the company to have been wholly political, on Dr. Jackson, the State Labor Commissioner, who asked for a reconsideration of the award by the Board of Arbitration. The company declined to reconsider, claiming that the award was conclusive, although it did volunteer to submit to the five judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzern County the ques