undoubtedly due to personal lack of aggressive qualities and temperamental inability to act promptly and vigorously in a crisis; but this does not relieve Mr. Asquith and his Cabinet from share in the responsibility. The Chief Secretary for Ireland is nominally under the direction of the Lord Lieutenant, but practically the Secretary takes the leading part in executive and administrative work. For nine years Mr. Birrell carried on this task; and if at last he failed, even his detractors admit that his fault has been mildness and over-leniency in dealing with plotters against the Government rather than tyranny and severity. In his speech of resignation Mr. Birrell admitted having made a false estimate of the Sinn Fein movement. He added a hope that new bonds of union might be forged and that Ireland might come to be a bright spot in the hour of the country's dire necessity. As a political figure Mr. Birrell's reputation will rest largely on his work as Minister of Education in the Campbell-Bannerman Cabinet in connection with the Educational Bill, although he failed to carry the measure.

One result of Mr. Birrell's retirement, it is to be hoped, may be a renewal of his delightful writing. A multitude of readers will not regret the passing of Birrell the statesman if they may have again Birrell the author of "Obiter Dicta" and "Res Judicatæ," to say nothing of half a dozen other books of literary biographies, essays, and reminiscences. As editor of a new edition of "Boswell's Johnson," as author of a "Life of Charlotte Brontë," and in many other ways he has done lasting literary work, but especially his name will remain grateful to lovers of anecdote and epigram because of that peculiar mixture of wit, criticism, and epigram, as in "Obiter Dicta," which came to be known as "birrelling." Some one has said that even his legal text-books and political blue-books sparkled. And all that he has written has good sense as well as lightness of touch.

A characteristic portrait of Mr. Birrell will be found in our picture section this week.

ARE WE LIVING UNDER
MARTIAL LAW?

Our readers already know something about the American Rights Committee. It was organized last November to support the right of American citizens to demand the protection of their Government when they are lawfully

107

traveling about their business on the high seas. It protested then, and it has continued to protest ever since, against the Lusitania assassination. Because the German Government has yet done nothing to atone for that assassination, but has committed others like it, the Committee has called upon President Wilson to break off diplomatic relations with Germany. About the middle of March it held a massmeeting in Carnegie Hall, New York City, to arouse public opinion in behalf of its protest, and to express its belief that the Allies are fighting for American institutions and that Germany is fighting against them. Organized pro-German sympathizers endeavored riotously to break up this meeting, but the police arrangements were perfect, and the rioters were bodily ejected, after some pretty serious physical struggles.

The American Rights Committee for several weeks has been engaged in planning another mass-meeting, which was to have been held in Carnegie Hall on Sunday evening, May 7, the anniversary of the sinking of the Lusitania. The programme was soberly arranged to be a memorial meeting. There were to be only two speakers, the Rev. R. H. McKim, D.D.. rector of the Church of the Epiphany, Washington. D. C., and Professor Franklin H. Giddings, of Columbia University, New York City. A declaration was to be read, honoring the Lusitania dead and calling upon the American Government to suffer no further delay in bringing about the severance of diplomatic relations.

The call for the meeting was signed by a very large body of citizens of New York, many of them eminent for their public service, who stood sponsors for its purpose and its orderliness. Just twenty-four hours before the meeting was held the Mayor of the city called upon the officers of the Committee and urged them to abandon the meeting. Two reasons were officially given for his action. One was that the meeting would embarrass the National Administration in its negotiations with Germany, and the other was that the previous meeting was the scene of so many interruptions by Germans and German sympathizers who were ejected from the hall by the police, that the Mayor did not wish to create this tension a second time.

If New York were living under martial law, the Mayor's action ought to be supported by all good citizens. But it is not

under martial law. Civil rights are supposedly in full force. Only the gravest situation justifies the Mayor in using the influence of his office to suppress a public meeting called in an orderly fashion to discuss a question of National policy. In Russia no public meetings of any kind can be held without the permission of the police, because such meetings tend to embarrass the Czar. Just preceding the Civil War anti-slavery meetings were suppressed because they tended to embarrass President Buchanan. Has German frightfulness affected us that we are to adopt Russian methods or to return to the futile policy of President Buchanan in the treatment of a National crisis?

SO

The episode may seem to be unimportant to the citizens in the Middle West or on the Pacific coast. If so, we cannot agree with them. We believe it is of the profoundest importance to every American citizen that his right of free speech shall be maintained, and we think it is to the interest of every American citizen to see to it that his National Government protects him in this right, instead of asking to be relieved from the embarrassment of protecting him.

THE MEXICAN EVIL

In characteristic Mexican fashion, the conferences at El Paso and Juarez between delegates of the United States and delegates of the de facto Government of Mexico have been discredited by the Mexicans themselves. The raid by Mexicans on the "Big Bend" district of Texas, when three American troopers and two or three civilians were killed, is proof that the conference has not the support of the whole Mexican people, and that there are still many of them who do not recognize Carranza's leadership. If the First Chief cannot keep his people in order while his agents are trying to reach an agreement with us, and while most of the mobile continental army of the United States is near the border or in northern Mexico, what reason is there to believe, what reason is there even to hope. that Carranza could keep Mexico in order after the adjournment of the conference and after the withdrawal of our forces to posts in the interior of the United States ?

It is idle to speculate, as some of the newspapers have been doing, as to whether the Mexicans who attacked the little town of Glen Springs were Villistas or Carranzistas. Some witnesses report that they heard shouts

of "Viva Villa" Others say that the night air was split with cries of "Viva Carranza!" Some say that they heard both these rallying calls. It is true that, whether there were Carranzistas in the raid or not, Carranza is nominally to blame, because the bandits came from a part of Mexico supposed to be thoroughly Carranzista and well garrisoned by the soldiers of the Primer Jefe. But it is futile to attempt to hold Carranza responsible, because he is not strong enough to bear responsibility. And it is futile to speculate as to whether the raiders were Villistas or Carranzistas, because the Mexican problem is not so simple as it would be if the country were divided into two camps. There are not only Villistas and Carranzistas, but Zapatistas, Obregonistas, Herreristas, and istas of many other stripes. If it be true that the raiders were led by General Rosalio Hernandez, an old Villa follower, as one report has it, then they should be called, not Villistas, but Hernandistas, for the allegiance of the Mexican soldier is ephemeral and entirely personal and he can rarely comprehend loyalty to a cause.

The Glen Springs raid is just one more piece of proof-if another were needed—that our whole relation with Mexico is on an erroneous basis.

We cannot hope that Carranza will catch the Glen Springs raiders for us, for he has not caught Villa, and there is reason to believe that many of the Carranzistas secretly applauded both the attack on Columbus and the attack on Glen Springs.

There is little hope that we ourselves can catch the Mexicans who attacked Glen Springs unless we have intervention, for there will not be men enough available for another "punitive expedition" until this trail, like Villa's, has grown cold.

In the meantime, the conferences between General Scott and General Obregon are continuing up to the time that we go to press, though with less prospect of definite accomplishment than ever.

The mobilization of the forty-five hundred combined militia of the border States of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, and the assignment of four thousand more regulars to the border, are steps in the right direction. But it is a comment on our unpreparedness that military commanders should consider sending our technically trained, mechanically expert specialists of the Coast Artillery to do the work of foot soldiers. It appears increasingly probable that, whether we want to or

not, we will soon have to do what we should have done long ago, and put Mexico's house in order for her. But even if we are to shun this duty, at least let us protect ourselves. Even if we are still to postpone attacking the root of the evil, at least let us shield ourselves from the poisonous offshoots that grow from the root.

THE COMMON SENSE OF
MASSACHUSETTS

While the United States Senate and the House are debating whether or not any step shall be taken to provide an adequate military force under National control, and while the prospect that any adequate programme of defense will be adopted grows dimmer and dimmer, it is worth while recording here one hopeful and forward-looking proposition for which the State of Massachusetts deserves the credit. The Massachusetts Legislature has passed a bill which should receive the attention of all those who are interested in National security. This bill has been signed by Governor McCall and is now law. The general purport of this measure may be learned from the following quotation:

The Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council, is hereby authorized and empowered to transfer any or all organizations, departments, or staff corps of the Massachusetts volunteer militia to such United States volunteer military or naval force, other than the regular army or navy, as the Congress of the United States may at any time authorize. . . .

The Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council, may lease to, or permit to be used by, any United States volunteer military or naval force, organized under the laws of the United States, any military or naval property belonging to the Commonwealth.

Properly enough, under the forms of enlistment in the National Guard, these general provisions are limited by the exception that any officer, enlisted man, or organization of militia cannot be forced to enter the Federal service without consent being given. From the information which we have concerning the rank and file of the organized militia in Massachusetts we believe that there will be little hesitation in accepting the opportunity provided for in this Act if Congress, in its wisdom, shall ever make such an opportunity available. If the example of Massachusetts could be followed throughout the country and at Washington, the organized militia would cease to be a State force and would become the backbone of a volunteer force under Fed

109

eral control. Short of universal training this is the best solution to our problem of defense which can be secured.

THE PRESIDENT AND MR. BRANDEIS

In response to an inquiry from Senator Culberson, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is charged with the duty of reporting on nominations to the Supreme Court, President Wilson has written a letter giving his reasons for sending in to the Senate the appointment of Louis D. Brandeis as Supreme Court Justice. Ordinarily the Department of Justice is asked by the Senate for any papers bearing upon a Supreme Court nomination; but in this case the Department had no such papers, and the request therefore for information was to the President himself.

The President's letter to Mr. Culberson is not only an unqualified personal indorsement of Mr. Brandeis, but a eulogy of him as a man, as a lawyer, and as a publicist. The foremost reason which the President gives for the nomination is his own personal knowledge of Mr. Brandeis. The President named him, he says, "because I knew him to be singularly qualified by learning, by gifts, and by character for the position." The charges which have been made against Mr. Brandeis, the President says, "threw a great deal more light upon the character and motives of those with whom they originated than upon the qualifications of Mr. Brandeis." And he adds that when he considered Mr. Brandeis as a possible member of his Cabinet he himself looked into these charges, "and found that they proceeded for the most part from those who hated Mr. Brandeis because he had refused to be serviceable to them in the promotion of their own selfish interests, and from those whom they had prejudiced and misled." In consulting him on nice questions of honor the President declares he has received from Mr. Brandeis "counsel singularly enlightening, singularly clear-sighted and judicial, and, above all, full of moral stimulation."

The President recounts in his letter the public service of Mr. Brandeis, already reviewed in The Outlook. After declaring that he did not depend upon "indorsement" for his knowledge of Mr. Brandeis, but nevertheless consulted many men in whose judgment he had confidence, the President concludes with a tribute to M

Brandeis's impartial and constructive mind. his analytical powers, his human sympathy, his American idealism, his sense of justice, his knowledge of modern economic conditions, and his judicial temperament.

As in other cases, the President's vague reference to the opposition as having its source in unworthy motives has occasioned not unreasonable resentment. The phraseology which the President has used does not strictly apply to all those who oppose Mr. Brandeis's nomination, but the general impression which he gives tends to put honest, as well as dishonest, opposition into the same category. This is unfortunate, and will be deplored by the friends of the President and of Mr. Brandeis as well as by those who honestly regard the nomination as unsuitable. On the other hand, the President's strong, courageous, and unqualified defense of Mr. Brandeis ought to be received with respect by those who are opposed to the nomination, as well as by those who hope to see Mr. Brandeis confirmed.

It is highly unfortunate that this nomination has been made the subject of a controversy that has been accompanied with much vague innuendo and personal attack. A great deal of the criticism of Mr. Brandeis, even from those who are honestly opposed to him, will tend to create the impression among many of the plain people of this country that the man who devotes high legal ability incisively and successfully to the defense of the public interest is subjecting his reputation. to a greater peril than that incurred by lawyers who are not over-scrupulous in devoting their high legal ability to the protection of special interests., It will be hard to erase this impression from many minds. No real good has been accomplished and much harm has been done by carrying on this investigation in public.

The Outlook hopes that Mr. Brandeis will be confirmed, and it also hopes that the hearings in the case of the Brandeis nomination will not serve as a precedent for the future.

MR. FAIRBANKS AND THE PRESIDENCY

A responsible correspondent in Indiana asks why The Outlook, in its consideration of the pre-nomination campaign, has ignored ex-Vice-President Fairbanks, and urges upon us the claim that Mr. Fairbanks is a very real factor in the situation. His supporters in Indiana make this claim, not merely on

the ground that he is a "favorite son," but because they believe that he has certain qualities that entitle him to National consideration. Our correspondent points out that all the other prominent Republicans talked of as candidates embody or represent serious factional conflicts. To quote our correspondent's own words: Massachusetts talks about Weeks and McCall; New York talks about Hughes, Root, and Roosevelt ; Ohio talks about Harding and Burton; but Indiana talks only of Fairbanks." Our correspondent adds that the reasons why Indiana Republicans are a unit for Fairbanks and insist that he will be an important factor in the Convention may be briefly set down as follows:

1. He is a harmonizer. While he supported Mr. Taft in 1912, he was in no way identified with the steam-roller tactics that were so offensive to the Progressives. The State delegation, which is composed of both the Old Guard Republicans and Progressives, is the best indication of this.

2. He is a conservative, but not a reactionary. The Republican party will adopt a platform of progress, and both personally and as a party man Mr. Fairbanks will accept that programme.

3. He is a man of the highest personal integrity, and if elected he may confidently be expected to associate with him in the administration of the Government other men of integrity.

4. He believes in party government, and, if elected, will be a party man in the best sense of the word.

5. He is well equipped to deal with foreign affairs. McKinley placed him on the AngloAmerican Joint High Commission for the successful settlement of questions of controversy between this country and Great Britain growing out of the relations w th Canada. He has actively served on the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, as a Senator and VicePresident presiding over that body, and he has had wide foreign experience as a traveler.

If the Republican Convention in Chicago in June is to be conducted along the lines of Republican conventions in the past, and a man is to be nominated because he can carry this or that State and can adjust party differences, or because he is free from personal quarrels and antagonisms, we should agree with our correspondent that Mr. Fairbanks must be regarded as an important factor.

But if the Convention is to be a deliberative convention, to deal with the greatest National and international crisis that this country has faced since the Civil War, it will