« AnteriorContinuar »
PROHIBITION IN CANADA AND TEMPERANCE IN
Canada, by the vote of the provinces, has been very largely dry territory for some months. Premier Borden has now announced that this provincial prohibition will be given the powerful support of Dominion law. Beginning on December 24, the Canadian Premier has forbidden the importation into Canada of intoxicating liquors. In his announcement he defined intoxicating liquors as any beverage containing more than two and one-half per cent of alcohol. The Premier announced that there would also be an investigation into the condition of the liquor industry, and that, after a date to be determined by this investigation, the prohibition of the manufacture of intoxicating liquors would be ordered. In a news despatch from Ontario the New York Times" reports that the Premier bases this order on the "unmistakable mandate for the employment of all the country's energies and resources necessary to achieve victory given at the last general election to the present Government. The Premier said:
It is essential and indeed vital for the efficient conduct of the war that wasteful or unnecessary expenditure should be prohibited, and that all articles capable of being used as food should be conserved. It is beyond question that the use of liquor affects adversely the realization of this purpose.
Associated Press despatches from our expeditionary force state that General Pershing has issued a general order covering the liquor problem among our soldiers abroad. In this order General Pershing announced: "Soldiers are forbidden either to buy or accept as gifts whisky, brandy, champagne, liqueurs, or other alcoholic beverages other than light wines or beers."
General Pershing's order, however, does not stop with the prohibition of heavy liquors. It contains drastic provision for the punishment of men who drink to excess, and also for holding responsible the commanding officer of units in which drunkenness occurs. General Pershing's order also wisely links control of the liquor traffic with the control of immorality surrounding our army camps. All sections of towns frequented by immoral women are declared to be off limits" for American soldiers. In this, as in his handling of the liquor problem, it is evident that General Pershing is taking every care to maintain the health and efficiency of his troops. Perhaps it may be possible to bring the handling of the liquor problem in our over-seas forces into even closer harmony with the laws appli cable to forces in this country than has yet been done, but we can rest assured that General Pershing will move as fast as expediency permits.
It is interesting to record in this connection that Mr. Roosevelt, in a recent letter to Dr. Clarence True Wilson, of the National Temperance Board, states that his sons have written him "most strongly (just as General Pershing has expressed his public opinion most strongly) as to the harm done to the men of the army by permitting the sale of liquor to them." Mr. Roosevelt adds that his sons have come to believe in absolute prohibition for the army in war time. One of them has written that his experience abroad has made a permanent prohibitionist of him.
WHY IS LA FOLLETTE STILL IN THE SENATE?
Where are the many voices which clamored a few months ago for the expulsion of La Follette from the Senate? La Follette is still in the Senate, though the reasons for expelling him from that body which were good three months ago are just as good to-day. The Outlook was of the opinion three months ago that the reasons for expelling La Follette from the Senate were very good indeed. It has not changed its opinion.
In the meantime, however, the Senatorial investigation into
the activities, writings, and speeches of the Senator from Wisconsin is apparently languishing. Senator Pomerene, Chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, informs us that the Committee on Privileges and Elections will meet on Tuesday, January 8, to determine whether the sub-committee of this Committee shall continue investigations under the limited authority given it or whether the hearings shall be before the full Committee.
There are many Americans who think that the Senate is no place for Robert M. La Follette at the present time, even though their voices have not lately been raised in protest against his continuance in office. It can be said without much fear of contradiction that the country at large looks to the Senatorial Committee on Privileges and Elections, as the trustee of the Nation's interests and honor, to handle the case of Senator La Follette without fear or favor or further delay.
Last week The Outlook called attention to President Wilson's tribute to the senior Senator from Minnesota, a Republican, in suggesting to Minnesota Democrats that Knute Nelson be re-elected. The occasion emphasized the growing non-partisan attitude at Washington.
We have now to refer to another example of non-partisan service. The death of Francis Griffith Newlands, Senator from Nevada, forms the occasion. Mr. Newlands was sixty-nine years old. He was born in Natchez, Mississippi. He studied at Yale and Columbia. He went to California to practice law, later going to Nevada. In 1893 he was elected to Congress and served ten years in the lower house. Then he was elected Senator. At the time of his death he was serving his third term in the Senate.
He became an authority on lands and transportation, and as such was one of the most influential figures in Congress. He was Chairman of the Committee on Inter-State Commerce, and also headed the General Railway Commission established a little over a year ago for the purpose of investigating the railway situation throughout the country. He framed the chief measures for the reclamation of the Western lands. He strongly advocated the construction of canals to compete with railways in freight transportation. Through his efforts a Waterways Commission was finally established by law. He took an intelligent interest in æsthetic matters, and introduced a measure which became the basis of National countenance of the fine arts.
In all these things the quality which most characterized Mr. Newlands was his readiness to serve his country without reference to party. Though a Democrat and highly regarded by the present Administration, to which his loss will be severe, Mr. Newlands rendered equally good service to the Republican Administrations of Presidents Roosevelt and Taft.
JERUSALEM AND IOWA CITY
The only formal community celebration in America of the capture of Jerusalem of which we have heard occurred at Iowa City, Iowa, recently.
The State University of Iowa is situated in that city, and some time ago the University Oratorio Society chose for a coming performance Gade's oratorio “The Crusaders." This proved to be a most happy coincidence, for it was this oratorio that was performed in celebration of the capture by the British of the city for the recovery of which the Crusaders in former years had set forth. At this celebration there was a large audience in which Jew and Gentile, Catholic and Protestant, and patriotic orders had ceremonial representatives. All creeds, nationalities, and orders had been invited to send them. Seated at the front were the Catholic priests, the Protestant pastors, and Jewish representatives, and marching in full regalia came the Masons, whose order, so tradition says, dates back to the building of Solomon's Temple; and after them came the Catholic Knights of Columbus, the Grand Army of the Republic and their companion society of the women of the Relief Corps, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Odd Fellows, all with standards and banners.
The armory in which the oratorio was performed had been
decorated with American flags, with the flags of our allies, and with the Red Cross insignia, while at the center was displayed a big Union Jack lent by an English family who had four sons at the front, one with the British and three with the American forces.
The oratorio was performed by a chorus of one hundred voices and an orchestra of forty pieces.
At the last strains of the final chorus-" The goal is won, Jerusalem. Up, your flag with hope endows thee. We cry aloud, Hosanna!"-the great service flag of the University, with its six hundred and sixty-six stars for the men who have gone forth, was unfurled and presented, and President Jessup in accepting it asked the community also to accept it in the spirit of service through the Red Cross and conservation. The chorus swung into one verse each of "God Save the King," the "Marseillaise," and "The Star-Spangled Banner," the audience joining.
It was a fine expression of community co-operation and civic spirit.
HAMPTON'S NEW HEAD
The appointment of a successor to fill the place held by the late Hollis B. Frissell as head of Hampton Institute is a matter of National importance. The Trustees of Hampton have chosen for this place the Rev. James E. Gregg, pastor of the First Congregational Church of Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Mr. Gregg is a native of Connecticut and a graduate of Harvard. For three years he was a teacher at St. George's School, Newport. He was then successively pastor of churches in Pittsfield and Lowell. He returned to Pittsfield in 1912, where for five years he has been active in the civic and religious life of the community. Two of the Trustees of Hampton are quoted in the New York "Evening Post" as most enthusiastically indorsing the appointment of Mr. Gregg, Dr. Anson Phelps Stokes, Secretary of Yale University, said:
I have known Mr. Gregg for ten years. Hampton Institute is fortunate in having at its head a man of his culture, judicial temperament, and high ideals, and with his deep interest in the work and in the colored people.... Mr. Gregg has something of the modesty and of the sterling qualities of heart and mind which so marked his distinguished predecessor, Dr. Frissell.
George Foster Peabody, in making the announcement of Mr. Gregg's appointment on behalf of the Trustees, said:
The new principal brings to his task the moral courage which made General Armstrong daring and the spiritual serenity which made Dr. Frissell wise, and the friends of the school look with renewed confidence and hope to the beginning of Hampton's second half-century of National service under the leadership of a man so well equipped as Mr. Gregg.
It is a tremendous task for which Mr. Gregg has been appointed, and it is gratifying to record the unanimity of opinion among the Trustees of the Institute in regard to his qualifications for the post.
The head of Hampton must combine in his single person the executive ability demanded of the head of a college, together with a sympathetic understanding of that rare philosophy of education of which Hampton Institute was practically the pioneer exponent. He must also have a fundamental appreciation of the social problems of the South, and an ability to secure the cooperation of both South and North in the work of finding a solution to those problems, which are peculiarly trying to one part of our country, but which can never be solved unless approached from the point of view of the Nation as a whole.
It is a tremendous problem which confronts Mr. Gregg. He will take up his task with the profound good wishes of thousands of Hampton's friends, both North and South.
THE GOVERNORS OF ARIZONA
George W. P. Hunt has been seated as Governor of Arizona. This has been done by the Arizona Supreme Court. At the same time it decided that Thomas E. Campbell's tenure of office since January 27, 1917, was not illegal, as he had been made de facto Governor by the same Court.
Mr. Hunt was elected first Governor of Arizona and was
re-elected. At the third election Mr. Campbell appeared to have won over Governor Hunt by thirty-one votes. Governor Hunt instituted a legal demand for a recount and declined to surrender the office on January 1, 1917. According to the newspapers, he barred the doors and windows of the Capitol, and when Mr. Campbell, accompanied by a crowd of formida ble-looking friends from the cowboy districts, arrived and demanded admittance it was refused. To the support of law and order, there had been not only a liberal scattering of armed deputies through the crowd, but there was no liquor to be had in Phoenix, the capital. Under these circumstances, it was the easier for Mr. Campbell to restrain his men from violence. He was inaugurated in the open air near the Capitol while Mr. Hunt was inaugurated within the Capitol. Thus there were apparently two Governors of Arizona.
When the Supreme Court issued an order declaring Mr. Campbell de facto Governor, Governor Hunt vacated, and Governor Campbell has held office since. The recount, however, showed that Mr. Hunt had been re-elected by forty-three votes. The Court's decision was unanimous, but it does not appear why the recount and the proceedings took so long a time. Thus ends one of the most curious election cases in our history, and one which illustrates an essential in successful self-governmentcratically constituted authority. namely, the acquiescence of the people in the decisions of demo
THE SURVIVOR OF COMMODORE PERRY'S
A portrait of William H. Hardy, the sole survivor of Commodore Perry's historic expedition to Japan in 1853, appears on another page. Mr. Hardy recently returned to the scenes of his adventures. He visited the port of Kurihama, where the Perry party landed. It is interesting to note that the entire population was in holiday attire for the visitor, that the streets were decorated with lanterns and the Stars and Stripes, that school-children stood in line along the way, and that all carried American flags which they waved, shouting loud " Banzais," as Mr. Hardy rode through the crowded thoroughfares. He responded by waving his sailor's cap, and, on arriving at the monument erected to commemorate the expedition, knelt in prayer, and planted an Oregon pine tree which he had brought with him from America. One of the Japanese who welcomed the Perry Expedition was present to welcome this survivor. As reported by the New York" Japanese-American Commercial Weekly," Mr. Hardy expressed his astonishment at the splendid progress Japan has made during the sixty-four years which have elapsed since he first landed there, and his satisfaction that now the flags of America and Japan are crossed as a symbol of the friendship existing between the two nations.
When the British Government published a Blacklist-a list of financial and commercial concerns with which the British were forbidden to deal-many Americans said, “We will never have a Blacklist."
But now we have. Our Government has published it. We trust that this act will still some of the echoes of those captious criticisms of Great Britain made in high circles in this country while we were still officially neutral.
The list contains the names of some seventeen hundred firms
and corporations in Cuba, Mexico, and South America suspected of having German connections and sympathies. In it are certain great banks, manufactories, and public utlilities representing the largest, most powerful and dangerous connections of German capital in Latin America.
Other lists will doubtless follow covering other countries. The British List for all countries now includes some six thousand
The work on our list was started last July. More than half the names, however, are duplicates of those given in the British Blacklist. If there are any " inequalities," they will doubtless be righted, as they were in the British List, by modifications. Meanwhile the business houses of the country, without excep tion, we believe, will take no chances with any concern mentioned
in the list, but will unhesitatingly accept the Government's warnings.
of his ability as an executive in the construction of the Hudson Tunnels, and the operation of trains through them between New York City and New Jersey; and he is, by virtue of his work as Secretary of the Treasury, qualified to deal with financial
GOVERNMENT OPERATION OF THE problems such as are presented in this new Government venture.
EVOLUTIONARY as it may seem, the action of the President in taking over on December 28 the entire railway system has been almost universally accepted as a normal and natural act. Even the conservatively-minded among the daily newspapers, and even such natural conservatives as bankers, greet this action in a spirit not only of acquiescence but of satisfaction. The way in which this profound change from private to public management of our railways has been received is an indication, as striking as it would be possible to find, of the effect on America that has been made by the World War.
For it is as a war measure that the President has taken possession of the entire railway system of the country. This he explains in his Proclamation published on Thursday morning, December 27. He quotes the resolutions of Congress declaring war on Germany and Austria respectively, in which Congress authorizes and directs the President "to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war." And he also quotes from the Army Appropriation Act of August, 1916:
The President, in time of war, is empowered, through the Secretary of War, to take possession and assume control of any system or systems of transportation, or any part thereof, and to utilize the same, to the exclusion as far as may be necessary of all other traffic thereon, for the transfer or transportation of troops, war material, and equipment, or for such other purposes connected with the emergency as may be needful or desirable. This provision was a product of the great war in Europe, although it was adopted more than seven months before the United States entered that war; and it gives the President this authority to take possession of and operate the railways-and, for that matter, all the transportation lines, including steamships-as an exercise of the Government's war powers.
Ít is, therefore, as an emergency measure, undertaken only because we are at war and only because of authority which Congress has given the President in time of war, that this Proc lamation has been issued; but the terms of the Proclamation are none the less sweeping. The Government has taken possession of every line of railway and every system of coastwise or inland transportation owned or controlled by a railway, including terminals, sleeping and parlor cars, private cars and car lines, elevators, warehouses, telegraph and telephone lines-in fact, the whole equipment of all American railways. The President intimates that even the operation of street-car lines and so-called interurban electric lines may pass under Government control and operation by a subsequent order.
In taking possession of the railways the President of course observes the limitation placed upon the Government by the Constitution. It would be contrary not only to the Constitution, but to the whole spirit of America, for the Government to seize private property under any emergency unless that private property were either forfeited through violation of law on the part of the owner and through consequent trial before the courts, or duly bought and paid for at a compensation carefully and judicially determined. In this case the railway property itself does not pass into the ownership of the Government. It is neither forfeited nor purchased. It is simply placed under the control and management of the Government. But that control, that management, is as complete and unqualified as if the railways were the property of the Government itself. At the same time, as the President makes very clear, for the use of the railways the Government will see that the owners of the railways, their shareholders, and the owners of railway obligations, will be duly paid.
For the purpose of carrying out what he has proclaimed, the President has appointed William G. McAdoo, Director General of Railroads. Mr. McAdoo does not relinquish his post as Secretary of the Treasury, but assumes his new duties in addition to those he is now performing. Mr. McAdoo has given evidence
The actual work of operation will be carried on by those who have carried on the railways under private management. To the ordinary observer there will be little change. In fact, however, the change will be radical. With the overwhelming burden which war has placed upon the railways, the unequal distribution of cars and supplies and other elements in transportation has threatened the country with very serious trouble. There has been a Committee of Railway Executives who have been patriotically co-operating with the Government; but this Committee has had no power to enforce its decisions, or even to see that railways that lack equipment and other necessary things should be supplied by roads which had enough and to spare. Managers cannot do what they will with private property. Only the Government has the power and authority commensurate with the task.
Though this great change comes as an emergency war measure, it is inconceivable that, though it may be modified, it should not be in some form lasting. Just as Government regulation has made it impossible to conceive of this country's ever going back to the old days when railways were managed with as much individual freedom as if they were on private estates of their own; so Government operation will, in our opinion, soon make it inconceivable that this country will ever go back to purely private operation, even though regulated. The changes which this war is making cannot be ignored or abandoned after this war is over. Government operation has come, in our judgment, to stay.
Whether this means ultimately Government ownership or not is another question. New York City owns its subways, but does not operate them. The United States Government does not own the railways, but will hereafter operate them. There is no question that the public has a right to own and the right to operate public utilities. The question in each case should be decided simply on this one ground, whether the public can act for itself better than it can hire private enterprise to act for it. The railways are public highways. Whether they are managed by private enterprise or by public authority, they should be managed for the benefit of the public. The time has come when it is proved that public benefit requires Government operation. And because the evidence of that is unmistakable, it is not in the least surprising that the whole country should acquiesce.
There is a familiar story of Abraham Lincoln to the effect that a delegation of clergymen once called on him, one of whom said, "I hope, Mr. President, that the Lord is on our side," to whom Lincoln replied, "That does not concern me; what concerns me is that we should be on the Lord's side."
Christmas morning's papers published a speech delivered by the Kaiser to his troops containing the following two sentences: "The year 1917, with its great battles, has proved that the German people has in the Lord of Creation above an unconditional and avowed ally on whom it can absolutely rely. Without him all would have been in vain."
The difference between Abraham Lincoln and the Kaiser is the difference between true and false religion, true and false faith.
False religion is the religion of self-will. False faith has its own plans formed and claims God as a silent partner lending the capital of his almighty power to enable self-will to carry out its plans. True religion is the religion of consecration. True faith believes that God has plans, and prays the Psalmist's prayer, "Show me thy paths, O Lord," and devotes itself to discovering God's paths and working with God to accomplish them.
The Kaiser's faith wants God for his ally. Lincoln's faith wants to be the ally of God.
At this beginning of a new year it were well for each one of us to ask himself whether his faith is that of the Kaiser or that of Abraham Lincoln. LYMAN ABBOTT.
Among the proposals for peace attributed to the German Government, and undoubtedly emanating from Germany, there is one that appeals with great force to many believers in selfgovernment. This is
"To leave the disposition of Alsace-Lorraine to a plebiscite of inhabitants."
This proposal recalls a somewhat similar one made by Stephen A. Douglas in 1854, to leave the question whether slavery should be admitted to or excluded from a Territory to the inhabitants of the Territory themselves. The proposal has passed into American history under the title of "Squatter Sovereignty." Abraham Lincoln's characterization of this proposal will be found in Volume I of his complete works, page 249:
What was Squatter Sovereignty? I suppose, if it had any significance at all, it was the right of the people to govern themselves, to be sovereign in their own affairs while they were squatted down in a country not their own, while they had squatted on a territory that did not belong to them, in the sense that a State belongs to the people who inhabit it-when it belongs to the Nation-such right to govern themselves was called Squatter Sovereignty.
What Germany proposes to do is to leave the question of Alsace-Lorraine to be determined by its present population, while the French inhabitants who were dwelling there in peace three years ago have been mostly killed off (to say nothing of the other French inhabitants who have been driven out by the German occupation of the past forty years) and their places taken by Germans "who have squatted on a territory that did not belong to them."
It is true that no territory should be disposed of by external authority without consideration of the rights and interests of the people who dwell upon it, and generally not without some consultation of their wishes; but it is not true that the people who happen to be dwelling upon a territory at any particular time are the only ones whose interests are to be considered, the only ones who have rights to be taken account of, the only ones whose wishes and judgment are to be consulted.
The Nationalists in Ireland demand that the destiny of Ireland should be determined by the Irish people, without regard to the rights or the interests of the English; but when the inhabitants of the north of Ireland desired to apply the same principle and demanded that Ulster should not be turned over to the control of the people in the south of Ireland against the will of the inhabitants of the north of Ireland, the Nationalists repudiated their own principle and demanded the right to exercise a controlling authority over the whole of Ireland. This' simple fact illustrates the fallacy of the principle involved in squatter sovereignty.
There are immense stores of coal and iron in Alleghany County, Pennsylvania. It would be preposterous if those stores of coal and iron belonged to the three-quarters of a million of people in that county. It was preposterous in the Civil War to claim that the people of Louisiana owned the mouth of the Mississippi River because they dwelt upon its banks and the people farther up had no rights or interest in the mouth of that river. It is quite as preposterous to claim that because now a majority of the people living in Alsace and Lorraine and transferred there from Germany are or may be Germans, Germany has a right to take possession of the mineral wealth of those two provinces.
The question how the ownership of the surface of the earth can be determined, and how the political control of each sec tion of the surface of the earth should be determined, is a very difficult one, because so many, so various, and so complex are the rights and interests involved. One thing, however, that is very certain is that no people have an absolute and exclusive right to control and use for themselves any portion of the earth's surface merely because they chance at the time when the question of control arises to dwell upon that territory.
As the interest of the whole American Nation was rightly considered in determining the political control of the United States, as the rights and interests of the people of all Great Britain ought to be taken into consideration in determining the political control of Ireland, so, whenever the nations are prepared to make the new map of Europe, the rights and interests
of the various peoples of Europe must be taken account of in determining the boundary lines of Alsace-Lorraine, and, indeed, of every new boundary line that may be drawn.
The question of Alsace-Lorraine, like many another question that has been raised or revived by this war, is a world question: and a world question cannot be decided by a local vote.
We Americans have gone into the war with the avowed purpose of fighting for democracy and liberty. From all kinds of witnesses comes the testimony that our men, disinclined to war. are setting out to fight in this war with high spirit, because they believe they are going to fight for liberty and democracy. And what impels us Americans to fight has been the evidence that a despotic, ruthless Power, acknowledging nothing more divine than Might, has oppressed, crushed, beaten down, and mangled people whose only offense has been that they loved liberty and dared to stand up against that power in the defense of liberty. This is why America admires Belgium and wants to help the Belgians.
But Belgium is not the only country that has suffered because it dared to try to be free.
The very first country to bring down upon its head the mailed fist in this war was Serbia.
And Serbia has been terribly punished for her love of freedom. Pan-Germany has delegated the scourging of Serbia to Bulgaria; and the Bulgarian King and his military group have taken joy in inflicting misery upon the Serbians.
And America, who has entered this war to defend democracy and liberty, is at peace with the Bulgarian King.
At least America is at peace with Bulgaria in form-but not in truth. If we are at war with Germany because she is making the world unsafe for democracy, we are at war with all who aid her in making the world unsafe.
We should declare war on Bulgaria.
First, because we should then be recognizing an existing fact. Second, because, as the map shows, Bulgaria and Bulgarian control of Serbia are part of the Pan-Germanic scheme, and by making war on Bulgaria we should threaten Pan-Germany. Third, because by making war we should close up the Bulgarian Legation and the Bulgarian consulates in this country. We have permitted one of Germany's allies to maintain centers of information, not to say influence and power, in this country. We should no longer allow a Government which is the ally of our enemy and the enemy of democracy to be treated as a friend, and to keep its agents in this country.
Fourth, because the Bulgarians themselves, who are naturally admirers of America and American ideals, need the demonstration that America does not stand for the Prussianism to which their King has committed them and their country. It is known that when the United States entered the war against Germany many Bulgarians who had been hypnotized by their petty Czar came to their senses and deserted the service of that wretched little despot. It is more than likely that a declaration of war by the great Republic of the United States upon the Government of Bulgaria would make thousands of other Bulgarians realize how they have been duped.
Fifth, because Serbia asks it. There is in this country a Serbian Mission. One of its members has been Professor of International Law in the University of Belgrade. Another has been Serbian Minister for Foreign Affairs. Another is a general, a Serbian hero of 1914. This Mission, representing a small country that successfully defied for months the great Austrian Empire, that has fought and fought and fought, that has been overrun with enemies and subjugated, that has been neglected by the Allies, though it was the first to take up the Allied cause, and though it lay closest to the heart of Pan-Germanythis Mission is here to plead Serbia's cause. Though this Mis sion has not officially asked this country to declare war on Bulgaria, there is no manner of doubt that every Serb in or out of Serbia that has Serbia's cause at heart would hail with joy a declaration of war by the United States against Serbia's nearest and most destructive enemy, Bulgaria. That reason alone is enough.