Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Bureau, speaking for the ex-service man, says: "Whether it be a matter of calling the Bureau's attention to an unrewarded claim, or an ill man needing hospitalization, or of tiding the sick veteran over the time which must elapse before Government aid can be offered, the Red Cross is always on the job with expert service and the necessary goods."

These are only the larger divisions of the humane work of the American Red Cross. Its public health activities, its encouragement of sound sanitary systems, its education in first aid, its training of nurses, its work in the schools, are less outstanding, but combined are extremely valuable.

We join with President Harding in urging Americans to renew their allegiance to the Red Cross "in the interests of our common humanity and of the service which we owe to our fellow-men."

THE ELECTION AS

A SCHOOL

Midnight, October 22, 1780. Franklin. Eh! oh! eh! What nave I done to merit these cruel sufferings? Gout. Many things: you have ate and drunk too freely and too much indulged those legs of yours in their indolence.

Franklin. Who is it that accuses

me?

Gout. It is I, even I, the Gout. Franklin. What? My enemy in person?

Gout. No, not your enemy.

B'

ENJAMIN FRANKLIN, whose paper in the form of a dialogue between himself and the gout thus begins, was wise enough to learn the uses of adversity. What the gout was to Franklin failure can be made to be to any one. It can be made to serve as a physician, a teacher, a good friend. Fools encounter defeat or censure, and become angry.

The timid encounter defeat or censure, and become discouraged.

The wise encounter defeat or censure, and learn from it.

Whether the elections on November 7 were a victory for the Democratic party is disputed; but it is universally recog nized that those elections were a defeat for the Republican party. There is reason for doubt whether the people by their votes were eager to register their approval of the Democratic party; but there is no doubt that they registered censure for the Republican party.

By our laws the Republican party, in spite of the adverse vote, will remain in power in the National Administration for over two years to come; and will even continue in control of Congress by the present overwhelming majority until xt March, and by a narrower margin

for two years thereafter. It is therefore of great concern to the Nation whether the rebuke administered at the polls will cause the Republican leaders to be angry, or discouraged, or willing to learn.

If experience of the past is any guide for the future, it is certain that some Republican leaders will have learned nothing. When in 1910 the people began to show dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Government, Republican leaders in power paid little attention; and when the revolt came they proved their incapacity for authority by a course which was guided by anger and resentment. Again in 1916 Republican leaders had a great opportunity of profiting by their lesson, but this time, to their undoing, they were guided by timidity. We hope for the sake of the country that such leaders will not prove to be in control of the dominant party now. We hope that those who are in position of authority in the party will repress whatever anger they are inclined to and overcome whatever timidity they are tempted by, and will regard this election as a school.

leadership. The people have common sense enough to know that the legislative and the executive machinery cannot run without direction. They want in charge of that machinery engineers who are willing to accept responsibility and exercise the corresponding authority.

Defeat can also teach Republican leaders a lesson in political appointments. Americans as a rule recognize the need of political organization. Indeed, they are among the most conservative people in the world in their loyalty to organized parties. During the past generation, however, they have been becoming more and more distrustful of party politics and party politicians. They are more sensitive than they were to appointments made for purely party reasons. They demand in every appointment at least the apparent justification of public service instead of party re ward. They may not always be right in their judgment as to the men most fitted for public positions. They are willing to roll up a large vote for a man like Charles Steinmetz for the position of State Engineer in New York because,

If they do, they will find defeat a good perhaps without sufficient reason, they teacher.

Defeat can teach them a lesson in leadership. A self-governing people like the Americans do not like bosses, but they demand leaders. They do not wish to be ordered about and told what to do; but they are ready to follow a man who understands their needs, has the insight to read their thoughts and interpret them aright, has the knowledge of the past to enable him to avoid pitfalls, has faith in the country's future, and has the authority of character and mind to direct the forces of government in carrying out the people's will. It is a mistake to believe that the people of America do not want leaders. It is a mistake to believe that the people are afraid to have those in positions of executive responsibility exercise authority. No two men in American history form a more striking contrast than Roosevelt and Wilson, but they both were willing to lead, and each found that the people were willing to follow him as long as they believed he represented their will and purpose. To-day there is a wide spread feeling that the Administration has been reluctant to lead. In particular, it is felt that the President, out of a sincere and unselfish desire to promote the spirit of co-operation, has been too willing to forego opportunities for shaping legislation, for forming and guiding public opinion, and for controlling through executive authority such disturbances as the coal and railway strikes. There is a feeling also that within Congress itself there is lack of intelligent, public-spirited, courageous

They

believe that a man who has gained a great reputation as an inventor and as a scientist would be a good administrator of a public office that has to do with engineering; and they do this although Mr. Steinmetz had no place on either of the great party tickets. They believe that the appointment of Mr. Daugherty to the position of Attorney-General was not because he was the greatest lawyer available but because he was a powerful agent of the party in the State. believe that the appointment of Mr. Reily to Porto Rico was not because he was the fittest man that could be found for the difficult task of colonial administrator, but because it was convenient to find some berth for a man who had rendered political service. They ought perhaps to remember that the former Administration made a worse appointment to Santo Domingo, and that the present Administration has chosen for Governor of the Philippines the greatest colonial administrator in history; but it ought not to be altogether distasteful to Republicans that the people should expect better things of this Administration than the worst of the preceding one, or that they should consider it natural that the high standard adopted in the Philippines should be applied to Porto Rico and elsewhere. That there is widespread dissatisfaction with the appointment of Dr. Sawyer as the Administration's chief spokesman concerning public health and public welfare is obvious, and it is no less pronounced because that appointment is attributed to personal rather than political causes. More and

more people are demanding that appointments to public office should be made for public reasons.

Defeat ought to be able to teach Republican leaders a lesson in political management. Again and again Americans have shown their discontent with the old method, followed in both parties, known as log-rolling. The fact that the people themselves are apt to follow this method in local politics renders them no more tolerant of it when it is followed in National politics; indeed, it may be one of the very reasons why they are intolerant of it. They do not like petty ways of dealing with matters of National concern. In particular, they are outraged by the log-rolling method as applied to the tariff. Very few Americans know anything about the specific schedules of the Tariff Bill which Congress recently passed; but they saw those schedules determined by a logrolling method. They saw their representatives swapping votes for the sake of satisfying special interests, giving a concession here for the sake of one interest in exchange for concessions on behalf of another interest. They have seen that method used again and again; and if they are disgusted with it more this time than ever before, it is because their disgust has become cumulative. It is this kind of political management that they identify with reaction. They are ready to trust almost any man who speaks to them in the terms of general interests as distinct from those who seek favor by giving favors for special interests.

Defeat possibly may teach Republican leaders, finally, a lesson in humanity. No matter how efficient, or high-minded, or industrious a public servant may be, Americans are not likely to trust him long with responsibility if they feel that he does not understand them and does not see the problems of the Nation in terms of the problems of the individuals who comprise the Nation. Men of widely different political opinions, widely different economic views, may all be successful in a single election if they all appear to the people to be thinking in terms of the experience of the individual men and women whom they seek to represent. Gifford Pinchot and Smith Brookhart, "Al" Smith and Henry Ford, to cite but four instances out of many, are men whom the people generally regard as human. It was this element of human understanding, the ability to think as the people themselves were thinking, that gave Theodore Roosevelt a unique place of leadership as long as he lived and will endear his memory to the American people through all coming generations. Such personalities cannot be made to order, but if party leaders

wish to maintain their party in control they must find men who not only have integrity and public spirit and the genius for command, but also personal understanding of the ordinary man and

woman.

These, we think, are some of the lessons which defeat may teach the Republican leaders if they are teachable. Perhaps at the end of their course of discipline they may be tempted to say to Defeat as Franklin said to the Gout: "I submit and thank you for the past, but intreat the discontinuance of your visits for the future; for in my mind one had better die than be cured so dolefully." And possibly they might profit, as indeed all political leaders would profit, if Gout's final warning might be put into the mouth of Defeat: "I know you too well. You promise fair, but after a few months of good health you will return to your old habits; your fine promises will be forgotten like the forms of the last year's clouds. Let us, then, finish the account, and I will go. But I leave you with an assurance of visiting you again at a proper time and place; for my object is your good, and you are sensible now that I am your real friend."

I'

PROHIBITION

F, as the "Wets" claim, prohibition was put over on an unsuspecting and unwilling public by the covert and cunning action of a small group of zealots and fanatics, the prohibitory law is certainly not going to stay on the statute-books without wide discussion and a good many rigorous tests of public sentiment.

The late election furnished some of those tests. The triumph of Senator Edwards in New Jersey certainly shows that an unmistakable majority of the voters of that State want beer and light wines, if not the good old American corner saloon. In New York the issue was somewhat obscured, although the "Drys" must admit that Governor Smith's overwhelming vote is an indication that the ardor of the women of the State for prohibition is not what it was thought to be. In Massachusetts the "Wets" claim to be encouraged by the election, although there the issue was, as in New York, obscured by other questions.

The "Drys," however, are justified in being jubilant about California and Ohio. California, in which wine-making was until recently a leading industry, has adopted by a clear majority a measure which insures effective State cooperation with the Federal authorities in enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment. This is really significant. And Ohio, which has never been a pro

hibition State, rolled up the extraordinary majority of 187,000 against light wines and beer.

The number of Americans who want a return of the gin-mill, the corner liquor saloon, the village barroom, is negligible. There are thousands of good citizens, however, who would like to be able to have a glass of claret with their dinner or a glass of beer on a summer evening while listening to a good band concert.

Now this picture of a glass of ruby Pontet Canet or of amber Liebfraumilch at the family dinner table and of a cooling stein of Pilsner or Würzburger at the family concert party is really very tempting. The trouble is that these nice things cannot be had without the liquor saloon. It has been tried, and the attempt has failed over and over again. The dispensary system has failed in the South; the Gothenburg system has failed in the Scandinavian countries. It seems to be pretty conclusive that if we take beer and light wines we must take the grog-shop along with them. The man

who says, "Oh, no! I don't want the saloon back again; all I want is light wine and beer," either does not know what he is talking about or does not really mean what he says. What he really means is that, saloon or no saloon, he ought not to be deprived of his personal pleasure. Don Marquis, the genial and perspicacious satirist of the New York "Tribune," hits the nail on the head with this well-aimed stroke:

"If they do make light wines an' beers legal," grumbled Clem Hawley, The Old Soak, yesterday, "that ain't gonna mean much to us drinkin' men. The trouble with light wines is that they're light. An' the trouble with beer is that it takes up room that orter to be used for hard liquor."

Stripped of all sophism, the question is simply a problem in social expediency. Is it better for the Nation to insist upon the personal liberty of every man to decide for himself about the use of alcoholic beverages or to insist upon the sacrifice of that form of personal liberty in order to abolish the liquor saloon with the alcoholism, the vice, the crime, and the political corruption which it inevitably produces?

Prohibition is not a matter of abstract morals; it is a matter of social welfare, like the abolition of the personal liberty of spitting where one chooses or the institution of compulsory vaccination. Viewed in this light, it is the greatest and most interesting experiment that has ever been tried in the history of civilization. It is certainly worth trying fairly and honestly. Notwithstanding New Jersey, we believe that a substan tial majority of Americans want to see that trial made.

[graphic][merged small]

John S. Sargent's new mural paintings for the Widener Memorial Library of Harvard University have recently been unveiled. They constitute a memorial to the Harvard men who gave their lives to the cause of the Allies in the World War. The subjects represented are the symbols of Death and Victory, and the Coming of the Americans to Europe. In the latter panel Mr. Sargent has filled the space with a mighty column of American youths in uniform, slashing the composition boldly from right to left. In the lower right-hand side are three figures symbolic of France, Belgium, and England. France, in the foreground, wearing the Phrygian cap, carries an infant on her left arm and stretches out her right to receive the support of the American soldiers. Behind her, Belgium, a broken sword in her hand, has swooned, and is upheld by other soldiers, while she

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

protects herself partially with the robe of Britannia, a helmeted figure behind her. In the upper left-hand corner is a magnificent representation of the American eagle, silhouetted against the flag. Behind the soldiers can be made out a conventionalized representation of the sea. In the other panel the motif is that of a mortally wounded soldier clasping in his left arm the shrouded figure of Death, and in his right the Winged Victory. Beneath his feet lies a fallen private, and above him are angels blowing trumpets. The face of Death is hidden and the figure wears a crown, but the effect is somber and terrifying. The Victory, on the other hand, is of a light golden color, affording a radiant contrast to the genius of Death. We have taken this description from an article by Professor G. H. Edgell in the "Harvard Alumni Bulletin"

THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF OSCAR S. STRAUS

CHAPTER XII-THE WORLD WAR

OURING through Normandy late

in July, 1914, we met some friends who had just come from Paris, who told us that war was imminent and from best reports would break out within a very few days. We hurried to Paris, and in the course of twentyfour hours the whole aspect of the city had changed. The air throbbed with the "Marseillaise." Everywhere there were crowds, but they were neither boisterous nor hilarious. Everywhere there was an air of tension and determination, vastly unlike the usual mood of jovial, happy Paris.

Starting at once for London, we found it impossible to get train accommodations, so we motored to Dieppe. The ordinary capacity of the boat for Newhaven was five hundred passengers, but it was packed with some two thousand persons on this voyage, mainly Americans. The Calais-Dover crossing of the Channel had already been suspended.

On the train from Newhaven to London a curious incident occurred that indicated the derangement of things. I had four fares to pay, amounting to about three pounds. I handed the conductor a five-pound Bank of England note. He took it, but shortly returned, saying he could accept nothing but gold. I expostulated with him, told him I had no gold, and since a bank note was valid tender I insisted upon its acceptance. But the upshot was that he preferred to take my card with my London address! My credit at that moment seemed better than that of the Bank of England.

In London soon afterwards, at the Waldorf Hotel, before a meeting of several thousand stranded Americans, I made a short address to the panicstricken assembly, assured them they had nothing to fear and were as safe in London as if they were in New York, and that our committee would remain with them and help them get suitable transportation as early as practicable. There was loud cheering and my words seemed to have a comforting effect.

A group of us at once organized a special committee for the aid of Americans in Europe. At the Hotel Savoy several large salons were placed at our disposal, so that we had room for the various departments that needed to be formed to attend to the wants of the many terrified Americans who were pouring into London from all over the Continent. I was made chairman of the Embassy Committee, of which Ambassador Page was honorary chairman, and the American Ambassadors to France, Germany, Austria, and the Ministers to Holland and Belgium were made advisory members. Many British friends

[graphic][merged small]

"We hurried to Paris, and in the course of twenty-four hours the whole aspect of the city was changed. The air throbbed with the 'Marseillaise.'" This picture shows the outskirts of Paris in the early days of the war

who visited our rooms marveled at the promptness and efficiency with which we despatched business under the circumstances, and were solicitous for the health of "the unofficial ambassador," as I was being called, and his staff.

EARL GREY AND WALDORF ASTOR One day Earl Grey paid me a visit at our headquarters, and with him was Mrs. Waldorf Astor, now Viscountess Astor, who insisted that Mrs. Straus and I spend the week-end at Cliveden, their residence, a short distance out of London. Other guests were Earl Grey, Geoffrey Robinson, editor of the London "Times," and several editors of the "Round Table," a political quarterly.

Mr. Waldorf Astor was an earnest, modest young man, then about thirtyfour years old, unspoiled by his enormous wealth. He was devoting much of his wealth as well as his parliamentary activities to philanthropic work, including the treatment and prevention of tuberculosis, and in this connection had been in touch with my brother Nathan in regard to milk pasteurization.

When England entered the war, the diplomatic correspondence was published in what was called the British "White Paper." Sir Edward Grey, now Viscount Grey, had made a speech in Parliament, of which I read the published version in this "White Paper." It happened that on that very day Earl Grey, cousin to Sir Edward, was lunching with me at my hotel, and I pointed out to him the

necessity of making clear, especially for the American public, that the reason England had joined the Allies was not so much on Belgium's account, but to uphold the sanctity of international obligations. This concerned not alone the belligerent nations, but all the nations. Without the sanctity of international obligations the war, no matter how it ended, would cause a reversion to a state of international barbarity. Earl Grey suggested that I discuss the subject with his cousin, and a few days later we three sat down to a simple luncheon at Earl Grey's home on South Street, in Park Lane.

Sir Edward Grey spoke earnestly and frankly. He felt the great responsibility of the decision that brought England into the war, and said he had often asked himself whether he could have done otherwise. There was nothing chauvinistic in either his attitude or his arguments. It was plain that he had weighed the entire issue carefully. His open-mindedness, simplicity, and straightforwardness of manner, his great ability and humanitarian zeal, impressed me.

I mentioned the importance of having Russia grant civil and religious rights to her subject nationalities, that the failure of such action would weaken the moral cause of the Allies, and that from an American point of view it was important that Russia give some evidence of a liberal spirit, otherwise it might be feared that victory for the Allies would

« AnteriorContinuar »