« AnteriorContinuar »
were said to be present, outlined resolutions which have since been sent to the King. These resolutions contained what is almost equivalent to a threat in the words, "If the people are not heard in these resolutions, we must take counsel what is to be done to minimize the ruin which awaits us." The resolutions plainly tell the King that he has "fallen a victim to evil advisers who have persuaded him that Germany must be victorious." The people demand the instant dismissal of the present "sinister" advisers; and the whole tone of their remonstrance is in favor of instant action against Bulgaria.
Berlin has taken the new situation in the east seriously but with outward confidence, and it is reported that plans had already been made in advance to afford substantial military assistance to Austria and Bulgaria. An important action is the removal by the Kaiser of the former Chief of Staff of the German Army, General von Falkenhayn, and the appointment in his place of Field Marshal von Hindenburg, the hero and victor of Germany's triumphs last year on the Russian line.
No progress of note was made by either side in the great battle-line on the Somme River or in the eastern war field during the week ending August 30. Both the AngloFrench and the Russian forces made slight advances. On the west the struggle still centers around Thiepval, Guillemont, and Maurepas. Perhaps the most notable single incident in the war was the capture by the Bulgarians of the forts around the important Greek port of Kavala; but, generally speaking, the actual fighting in the Balkans has not been at any one point of much impor
The Zeppelin raid on England of August 24 did more damage than some previous raids had accomplished, but still was not seriously important from the military point of view. The air-ships are said to have dropped about a hundred bombs, which damaged an electric power station and engineering works, started a few insignificant fires, and, according to English reports, caused the death of three men, three women, and two children, and injured thirty-six other people.
WHY PEACE SEEMS DISTANT
Under present conditions, there seem to be insuperable obstacles to an agreement on terms of peace by the nations at war in Europe. It is, of course, at least conceivable
that a sudden military collapse or overwhelming victory might force one of the combatants to sue for mercy, as France did in 1871. Probably this is what the German General von Kluck had in mind when he said the other day to a correspondent that the war might take years to finish or might end in a few days. It is possible also that, without such a collapse, one combatant might be so convinced of its own ultimate defeat as to make the best terms possible at the moment. But, apart from these possibilities, each combatant has too much at stake which it thinks essential to its own future safety and to its escape from financial ruin to make an agreement on peace terms probable. Those sincere but over-optimistic lovers of humanity who are so constantly crying peace when there is no peace are really doing more harm than good.
A convincing explanation of this phase of the war has lately been presented by the wellknown writer on war topics, Mr. Frank H. Simonds, in the New York" Tribune." He agrees with Lord Kitchener's forecast of a three years' war (made, it is said, in the early days of the war), but goes beyond that early forecast, and now thinks that the war will last in all four years, or at least into 1918. The reasons are both military and commercial. As to the first, despite the recent gains of the Allies-and, we may add, the new situation in the Near East-the Germans occupy a great deal of enemy country, and both in the west and in the east have available excellent lines of defense many miles back of their present lines and yet still in the enemy country; moreover, if they do so withdraw, their lines become shorter and fewer men are needed to hold them, thus meeting to some extent the "wearing down" theory of the Allies. That the Allies are not in anything like immediate danger of military collapse needs no argument at this time.
Turning to the exposition this article gives of the commercial and industrial reasons against the probability of immediate peace, we find that Germany has wrecked industrial regions of vast importance in Belgium, France, and Poland, has literally burned the factories and transported the machinery to her home provinces;" thus, if war stopped to-day, Germany could put her factories to work to supply the world's demand, but France, Belgium, and Poland would have to restore their factories, buy new machinery, and start afresh. But this is not all; the
districts in France, Belgium, and Poland now held by Germany include vast iron-fields, together with immensely valuable coal regions. Now Germany, Mr. Simonds says, will never surrender these districts until she has been overwhelmingly defeated; on the other hand, the countries to which they belonged before the war will never give them up to Germany unless those countries are at the last gasp.
Similar arguments may be made as regards shipping. Mr. Simonds contends that Great Britain will insist that Germany make good out of German shipping the losses inflicted by German submarines on British shipping. Again, if war ceased now, Germany might expect a tariff combination by her former enemies, discriminating against Germany. If we look at the relation of Germany and Russia, of Turkey with the other Powers, or of the Balkan situation, other tremendous difficulties and complications present themselves.
In short, when Germany or German speakers and writers intimate that Germany might accept peace on the basis of "the map of Europe "—that is, the status quo, or, in plain English, the actual condition as it is to-daythe proposal is totally unthinkable from the Allies' point of view. On the other hand, the status quo ante—that is, the map of Europe as it was before the war-is equally unacceptable to Germany until she has undergone, or sees that she is on the point of undergoing, a complete and decisive defeat.
Prophecies are proverbially dangerous, but those who think that the only obstacle to peace is the hard hearts of men who like war for itself have as little conception of the magnitude of the great world problems which must be solved before peace begins as a child has of differential calculus.
WARRING AGAINST CHILDREN
Charles Reade, in his "Cloister and the Hearth," tells of the cruelty of a Duke of Burgundy who "decanted" at his sovereign pleasure people from villages, which he deemed too populous into other villages where he deemed that they were needed; and the author describes movingly the wretchedness and grief of the poor people torn from their homes and friends and driven along the highway weeping. Germany has gone far beyond that, for the noble Duke did not divide families. She has driven the poor French villagers, and especially the boys and
girls from sixteen to twenty years of age, to distant points, tearing them from their families and forcing them to work on the land wherever Germany sees fit to use them. This is literally treating children like cattle.
It will be hard to believe that such a thing could happen were it not for France's official report and protest against this form of inhumanity. This protest is addressed to the governments of neutral Powers-we hope that our State Department will not fail to send a reply and to make that reply public. The protest is in the form of a White Book or Yellow Book-it has been called both-and those who wish to read the story will find it reprinted in full in the New York "Times" of August 20. It covers nearly two pages of that paper in solid type, and it marshals as exhibits letter after letter, document after document; among other things a stirring letter from the Bishop of Lille to a German general, to whom he appeals as a Christian and a father, urging that "the inviolability of God, who institutes it, is in the family," and saying that "to tear young girls from their homes is no longer war; it is torture, and the worst of tortures-undefined moral torture."
The Premier of France, M. Briand, in transmitting the protest to the ncutral Powers, asks for the judgment that the universal conscience will render" on the facts stated, and summarizes those facts from the evidence gathered by the Minister of War. Roubaix, Tourcoing, and Lille were the chief places outraged in this way, and other smaller places are named. In those three places twenty-five thousand men, women, and children, without distinction of social conditions and of every age from sixteen up, were taken away. The men, it is said, are employed at farming, road work, munition-making, and digging trenches; the women to cook and wash for the soldiers and "to take the places of officers' orderlies!" Here is a brief description of one scene:
Toward three o'clock in the morning the streets were barred by troops with fixed bayonets and a machine gun set up across the sidewalk against unarmed people. The soldiers entered the houses and officers designated the persons who were to go, and half an hour later every one was carried away pellmell to a nearby factory, and from there to the railroad station for departure. Mothers with children under fourteen years were spared, young girls
below twenty years old were carried away only with a person of their family, but this does not lessen the barbarity of the measure. Soldiers of the Landsturm were visibly embarrassed to find themselves employed for such work.
In commenting on this stolidly inhumane action, the "Times" entitles its editorial "As in Cæsar's Time," but quotes a noted French writer as denying to the Germans the right to be called barbarians because "the barbarians at least were on a level with the customs and sentiments of their time."
CONGRESS AND POLITICS
Outside of the railway situation (dealt with elsewhere in this issue) during the past week the most important subject under consideration by the Senate has been the Revenue Bill. In connection with the discussion of this bill, the incident which has excited most interest was the attempt of Senator Underwood to lower the exemption on taxable incomes from three thousand to two thousand dollars. Senator Underwood, declining to be bound by the Democratic caucus, carried his fight to the floor of the Senate. Despite the aid of fourteen Republicans, his amendment was defeated by a vote of 31 to 19.
On August 29 President Wilson signed the army and navy appropriation bills and the Philippine measure. It will be remembered that President Wilson vetoed the army bill originally passed by Congress because of a clause in the revised Articles of War exempting retired officers from military discipline. It was speedily amended in the way President Wilson desired, and by his signature has now become law. The justice and wisdom of his veto are strikingly attested by this quickly earned victory.
In signing the Navy Bill, President Wilson said: The Navy Bill is a very remarkable measure. Never before by a single act of legislation has so much been done for the creation of an adequate navy. . . . It is a matter of unusual gratification that we should have been able at this time to do so much and do it so well-as I believe it to be done in this bill- and to do it with such unanimity of support and opinion."
Interest in the Presidential campaign, aside from Mr. Roosevelt's speech in Maine, which is discussed in an editorial in this week's issue of The Outlook, seems to have been lost in the tremendous concern which the country has felt over the railway situation. The most striking event of the week
was, perhaps, the result of the Democratic Senatorial primary in Texas. This was won by Senator Charles A. Culberson (known as the Wilson candidate) over ex-Governor Colquitt by a vote which is reported to be in the neighborhood of 146,000 to 83,000. ExGovernor Colquitt, the defeated candidate for the nomination, has been a severe critic of President Wilson's Mexican policy.
The Outlook in its issue of August 23 reported Mr. Hughes's charge that Mr. O. H. Tittmann had been removed by President Wilson from the head of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. The Outlook said: "No explanation, either adequate or inadequate, seems to have been made to meet this charge."
Newspaper correspondents have, however, reported Secretary Redfield's denial that Mr. Tittmann was forced to resign. They also have quoted Mr. Tittmann in confirmation of Secretary Redfield's denial.
SECRETARY DANIELS AND
Several times during the past few months Secretary Daniels has indicated his belief that the failure of the United States navy to maintain its rank of second place among the war fleets of the world was in part due to the indifference of Mr. Roosevelt's Administration.
He recurs to this belief in a recent letter to Representative Butler, ranking Republican member of the House Affairs Committee. This letter, which constitutes an exhaustive and in many ways an excellent report on the progress of the navy during President Wilson's Administration, was made public on August 27. It is in presenting this record that Mr. Daniels again offers the criticism to which we have referred. He says:
In 1905 the Secretary of the Navy (Mr. Bonaparte) asked for only one battle-ship, and in his Message to Congress in the same year President Roosevelt said, in order to maintain and increase the then standard efficiency of the navy, it did not "seem necessary, however, that the navy should-at least in the immediate future -be increased beyond the present number of units," and he advocated adding a single battle-ship to our navy each year." In his 1907 Message President Roosevelt wrote to Congress: "I do not ask that we continue to increase our navy. I merely ask that it be maintained at its present strength." At that time the General Board was insisting upon two to three new battle-ships each year, but their
recommendation was carefully pigeonholed and not permitted to reach the public.
Mr. Daniels in this criticism apparently ignores the statement of the General Board of the Navy (which he himself quotes in his letter to Representative Butler) that in this very year 1907 the navy of the United States advanced from third to second place, judged by number of ships actually built, and in quoting from Mr. Roosevelt's Message of 1907 he neglects to add any quotation from the special Message which Mr. Roosevelt sent to Congress on April 14, 1908, a Message which casts no little light upon the conditions confronting the country at that time in comparison with the situation to-day. President Roosevelt then said:
Prior to the recent Hague Conference it had been my hope that an agreement could be reached between the different nations to limit the increase of naval armaments, and especially to limit the size of war-ships. Under these circumstances I felt that the construction of one battle-ship a year would keep our navy up to its then positive and relative strength. But actual experience showed not merely that it was impossible to obtain such an agreement for the limitation of armaments among the
rious leading Powers, but that there was no .kelihood whatever of obtaining it in the future within any reasonable time. Coincidentally with this discovery occurred a radical change in the building of battle-ships among the great military nations-a change in accordance with which most modern battle-ships have been or are being constructed of a size and armament which doubles, or more properly trebles, their effectiveness. Every other great naval nation has, or is building, a number of ships of this kind; we have provided for but two, and therefore the balance of power is now inclining against us. Under these conditions, to provide for but one or two battle-ships a year is to provide that this Nation, instead of advancing, shall go backward in naval rank and relative power among the great nations. . . . I earnestly advise that the Congress now provide four battle-ships of the most advanced type. I cannot too emphatically say that this is a measure of peace and not of war.
In 1916 President Wilson in his efforts to build up the navy of the United States has had the stupendous advantage of an aroused public opinion made vocal chiefly through private initiative and endeavor. In 1908 no such condition existed. Mr. Roosevelt's recommendations, as one man who was then a Member of Congress has recently testified,
excited only languid interest among the
people of the country-excepting where they aroused sharp condemnation."
WHEN IS A BOS'N
NOT A BOS'N?
From this consideration of naval history it may be a relief to turn to an incident in a much lighter vein which has recently served to enliven naval circles.
During the progress of the Naval Bill through the Senate Senator Tillman introduced an amendment of very innocent appearance which fortunately does not appear in the measure which President Wilson has just signed because it did not survive the journey through the legislative mill. In brief, this amendment provided by deft circumlocution "that no officer shall be addressed in orders or official communications by any other title than that of his actual rank."
To the civilian this sounds fair enough, but the civilian is generally unfamiliar with the distinction between the words rank and grade. An officer may have the grade of commander, of assistant civil engineer, of chaplain or naval constructor. The question of rank is entirely a different thing. Rank means that officers in one grade have the same "official standing" as officers in another grade. Some of the titles of the various grades belong to the line and some to the staff of the navy. It is quite as absurd to call a man "captain " or " commander" merely because he "ranks" as captain or commander, as it would be to insist that a railway president be called "senator" because he might have the same social standing in a community as a member of the upper house.
That the absurdities of this proposal would have been extended to warrant and petty officers of the navy is made evident in a letter which a naval pharmacist recently addressed to the editor of the Navy." He writes in expectation of the passage of the amendment :