Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

at any time. They are taking their chances, and if any mishap comes to them over there I shall grieve for their loss; I shall grieve for their injury, as you will grieve for the injury or the loss of your boy. But if that loss comes, or if the injury comes, in the course of the regular struggle, where they are supplied with all munitions, where they are taken care of as they should be taken care of, then my grief will be mingled with a spirit of pride that members of my family have made part of the sacrifice necessary for the maintenance of our institutions. But if loss of life comes to them, if injury comes to them, because they, like the Russians in Galicia, have not been supplied with the necessary material to properly defend themselves, then with the grief in my bosom will be a feeling of shame that my countrymen were not willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to produce the material with which the boys could fight.

MUCH MATERIAL NECESSARY.

A tremendous amount of material is necessary to properly equip our armies at the front. To secure this equipment will require the most perfect organization of our forces at home and the highest possible standard of efficiency. It will require that our industrial disputes be abandoned, at least until the war is over, not by the process of crushing the worker or the employer into submission, but by the process of doing justice to both parties and to the public at large. A great deal has already been done by the Government in that direction. Adjustment committees have been introduced in a large number of industries, whose decisions are final and binding on both parties. In a number of industries truces have been arranged between the employers and the employees for the period of the war. The mediation service of the Department of Labor is working out the settlement of many hundreds of disputes, principally before they reach the strike stage and consequently before they have any news value for the public press. Still more comprehensive plans are under consideration by the Council of National Defense, which, if put into operation with the approval of the great masters of industry and the trade-unions of the country, will eliminate all serious trouble until we have disposed of the common enemy.

Our greatest difficulty has been the attitude of mind of employer and employee, but as soon as both realize that our institutions are at stake in the issues of this war, and that sacrifice on the part of every one for the common good is the great essential duty, we have not had much difficulty in bringing them together and adjusting their disputes.

WHY WAR AS MEANS OF SETTLEMENT OF NATIONAL DISPUTES WAS REPUGNANT TO AMERICAN LABOR.

[Prepared by E. P. MARSH.]

During the past decade the sentiment of American labor had crystallized against resort to arms as a means of settlement of disputes between nations. War had come to be believed as wasteful economically, socially, and morally. Labor felt that no national

advantage gained through force of arms could offset the human life sacrificed, the burden of taxation levied upon successive generations to pay the cost of war, the standards of life set back or destroyed, which had to be rebuilt slowly and with infinite sacrifice. In short, war had come to be looked upon as morally wrong, entirely unnecessary, a calamity that could be avoided and must be avoided if the race was to progress. This feeling was shared to a greater or lesser extent by the workers of all civilized nations, and there was a universal feeling in world labor ranks prior to the outbreak of the European war that this sentiment. shared by many thoughtful people outside the ranks of the wageworkers in all civilized nations, was strong enough to prevent any armed conflict which would involve any number of peoples. This sentiment was undoubtedly responsible for the lack of military preparedness, in the sense that Germany prepared, among the other major powers now engaged in the world conflict. The preparedness of Germany was known to the statesmen and diplomats of other countries, but public opinion in the world at large, obsessed with the belief that conflict was impossible, would have overthrown any government which attempted to commit its people to any militaristic program larger than that which its people had accepted as necessary for national police pro-. tection.

EFFECT OF OUTBREAK OF EUROPEAN HOSTILITIES UPON LABOR SENTIMENT IN AMERICA.

When the war clouds broke in Europe American labor was stunned. All its preconceived notions as to the inability of any great nation to wage war upon another nation because the working people would refuse to either fight or produce munitions and supplies of war were shattered when nation after nation quickly mobilized its armies and the organized-labor movements of each country, without exception, quickly pledged their men and their resources to the support of their respective governments. But the fact that America itself might be drawn into the world conflict was still foreign to the mind of the American workman. While American labor grieved over the fate which had befallen its kind in Europe no sense of danger to this country was apparent. From the beginning of this Republic it had been our national policy to hold aloof from the quarrels of the Old World. Thousands of miles from European shores we had preempted a new continent. The vastness of its natural resources to our national mind offered an asylum for the oppressed of Europe, a great melting pot for the common peoples of the earth where under the protection of a great democracy they might build their family altars, worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, free from the oppressions of imperial and autocratic systems of government. The splendid isolation of thousands of miles of ocean protected us. We had no quarrel with Europe and we asked but to be let alone. We stood upon our rights to protect the people of continental America from invasion or aggression as enunciated by the Monroe doctrine, and further than that we could not see that the European conflict embroiled us as a nation. Let Europe settle her own family quarrel. We were to remain the one great neutral nation of the earth. When the time

came America, untrammeled by participation in the conflict, with no desire for American aggrandizement nor territorial expansion, would be the natural messenger of peace to war-worried Europe. This latter thought was the administration view in the early stages of the war, the hope of President Wilson himself.

We had assimilated in this country millions of peoples from all the warring nations. Germany had contributed her sons and daughters in large numbers. They were classed A1 among our incoming immigrants. Frugal, law-abiding, readily assimilable, they had brought to this country all the attributes which apparently make a nation great. They contributed to our arts, to our sciences, to our industries. The German people are essentially a domestic people, and the virtue of the family tie was accentuated by the immigration of the German to America. Every hamlet in America had its quota of German families, good citizens, big hearted, and our impressions of Germany were the impressions gained by every-day contact with these simple, honest folk. It is easily understandable, therefore, that the thought of a war with Germany was a monstrous nightmare. What quarrel had we with such a race of people? We could not imagine the people living in Germany as being so very much different from those who had emigrated to our soil. We argued that it would be a great moral crime to wage war upon a people such as these within our borders, and our social contact with our citizens of German birth and ancestry made the thought of such a war unspeakably wrong. We were at fault in that we did not make a painstaking analysis of the contrast between the forms of government in Germany and America, a study of the political history of the two countries. Such an analysis and study would have made many things clear to us which for so long seemed inexplicable.

GERMAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT VERSUS AMERICAN.

No one denies that American history down to the present date furnishes its glaring examples of inequalities and injustices. We have had and still have our plague spots in American industrial and social life. We shall probably never be a perfect democracy. Man's inhumanity to man will crop out in all human relationship. There is no desire to excuse nor condone the things that have been done in this country that are black blots upon civilization. But with all our imperfections, industrial wrongs, and social ills, the big fact stands out that this is the most perfect democracy yet conceived upon the face of the earth. Nowhere else on earth is the same power to right injustice and wrong by sane, constructive action granted to the people of any nation. When a majority in this country become convinced that a certain governmental policy is best for the people, an expression is found for that belief. If a certain policy has not been adopted, it is because the minority has not been able to convince the majority that it is right or seasonable. American government is founded upon majority rule. It is recognizable that a majority may be wrong or misled, but the myriad avenues of information and education invariably in time lead the majority to the sound, logica! way of thinking, despite the efforts of those who would mislead, and the right method of solution finally wins its appeal to a majority of the citizenship and the thing desired is obtained. This is because the humblest citizen in the land is the State.

This form of government needs to be sharply contrasted with the German form of government to understand the sharp contrast. The most patent contrast is between the office of President of the United States and the Emperor of Germany. The President of the United States executes the will of the people of the United States. His views may be in contradistinction to the views of the people. He must convince the people that he is right and they are wrong, else he and his party will be overthrown at the first election. The German Kaiser rules through the law of heredity, a procedure accepted by the German people through centuries. No power save force of arms can dethrone their ruler. Through the centuries the German people have been taught that their Emperor ruled by divine anointment. The most deep-seated instinct in man is the religious instinct. Through all the changing epochs of human advancement, the principle of divine right of rule has been held uppermost in the minds of the people. Little by little as the political demand for selfgovernment as a means of expression of human wants and needs has spread through the world, it has had its reflex in Germany by an extension of the right of suffrage and added political expression to the people, but the theory of divine right of kingship has never been deviated from a hair's breadth by the ruling house of Germany. Through centuries an autocratic cabal has been built up and about the ruling house of Germany. Might, not right, has been the foundation upon which Germany's ruling power has planned and builded. There comes a time in the history of all nations when the ruling power has to justify its methods to its own people, if those methods seem to differ sharply from the methods of other nations. As democracy gained ground in other countries and peoples gained the right of determination of their own destinies, the German Government found it must prove its own theory of autocratic government. The German Imperial Government in that period had visions of a world empire, not content with its narrow geographical boundaries. From the beginning of time man has clung tenaciously to the spot of ground he has called his own, no less true of men in the mass than of individuals. The fiercest wars in history have been for possession of the earth's surface, the means of subsistence of mankind. Subjugation of peoples which brought territorial expansion has in all the history of the world been finally consummated by force

of arms.

The German rulers of that day mapped out a campaign of conquest, but with it all realized that conquest comes to the best prepared state, and that the greatest asset of a state is a united people that can stand the supreme test. Men will fight for the perpetuation of ideals and the imperial statesmen and kingly advisers of that age sought to impress upon the German masses the ideal of a strong, centralized, autocratic government as being the best assurance of their daily well being. It was with this in mind that the system of agrarian and industrial reforms took root in Germany, rooting in the beneficent care of the state. Germany led the world in her system of social and industrial reforms, throwing around the common citizen the protecting arm of the state, building in the mind of the German citizen a belief in his autocratic, centralized government as the source from which all blessings flowed. Through succeeding generations this policy was pursued until the German citi

zen of humble birth looked upon the state as the source from which he received the things which made life bearable. Having firmly implanted that belief in the mind of the German citizen, it was a natural and logical step to the belief that any clash between his autocratic government and the government of any other nation threatened his own physical well-being. There you have the whole story of the loyalty of the German people and people of German ancestry to the government of the land of their or their ancestor's birth. This we failed to take into account in the early stages of this war, and failing this we failed to fathom the German people.

THE GERMAN POLICY OF AGGRESSION.

The German Imperial Government never recognized the principle of arbitration as a settlement of international disputes. When the Government of the United States, through The Hague conferences, sought to negotiate treaties between nations with arbitration as the determining factor in the settlement of international disputes Germany blocked the way. She recognized but two means of settlement, viz, diplomacy or war, never arbitration as the last resort of settlement. When the present world conflict was precipitated she violated the neutrality of Belgium with a brutal impunity that startled the world. No blacker page in history has ever been written than the German invasion of Belgium. No historian will ever live that can paint that picture of ruin and desolation as it actually exists. Beneath the soil of that outraged land molder the bodies of Belgium's people, who in all their lives committed no crime against individual or state, victims of German outrage. Sold into slavery worse than death, by the thousands, Belgium's womanhood cry aloud for vengeance. Throughout Belgium and northern France cities lie waste and desolate, the noblest works of art and statuary desecrated by the German horde, a blackened, smoking, deserted land bear testimony to the ruthlessness and fury of German autocracy. Were there no other claim to American chivalry, the ruin the house of Hohenzollern has brought to that land would cry aloud for American sympathy.

"But," the American pacifist will say, "even that does not excuse America's entry into the war. Better that Europe carry to its fruition its war of extermination than American lives be lost in the world holocaust and America abandon its century-old policy of noninterference in the affairs of European nations. Germany does not threaten the United States."

As if the ravishment of Belgium, with all its horrors and its violation of international treaties, were not enough, Germany began an era of frightfulness upon the seas. All the diabolical ingenuities of the Spanish inquisition, the war upon the Aztecs, do not surpass the inhumanity of Germany's submarine warfare. It were not enough that actual combatants should be slain; women and children who had no part in this war were sent to watery graves by the demon that lurked beneath the waves. There are those who maintain that America should have abandoned her overseas commerce; that American travels had no business in the war zone. From time immemorial it has been the common agreement among nations that neutral nations should have free right to the seas for their commerce in war as in

« AnteriorContinuar »