Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

who revealed to those New York mothers and fathers an astonishing new conception of the man on the beat.

"What's the attitude of the police toward the children?" Sergeant Ferré repeated, reading from a slip that had been handed him. I'll tell you. We are trying to be the Big Brothers to the children. We're trying to overcome the children's fear of the cop. We're trying to make the parents of the children understand that we're the best friends the kids can have. We are going into the schools, at the assembly hour in the morning, and talking to the kids-telling them why we have to have laws and why the police have to enforce certain rules. We're trying to make mothers and fathers, as well as the children, understand that certain regulations concerning the use of the parks must be enforced if the parks are to be kept for the enjoyment of all. But we are insisting that no unreasonable regulation shall be given us to enforce.

"The New York police want the children to get as much play as they can, in every way and in every place it is possible for them to play. We are glad to see certain streets set aside for play and closed during certain hours to traffic; we're with you in wanting every vacant lot in the city turned into a playground for the children.

"Under Commissioner Woods, the police have a strange ambition. I'll tell you what it is," Sergeant Ferré paused and smiled. broadly. "You know what people think about the cop-what they've always thought about him. Well, it's got into the very nature of the cop himself. So that he's like the little mongrel dog that grew up in the city streets. Since the first day that dog could remember some boy had tied a tin can to his tail, and in time the little dog got used to it and thought it was all right-not pleasant, but all right. Finally it got so that the little fellow would just naturally back up to every tin can he found on the street !

"The ambition of the New York police don't faint!-is to get rid of our reputation as ogres. We are not tyrants. We are, most of us, fathers of children that we think a lot of! We are going to see the day, if our efforts can bring it about, when the kid will think of the cop first if he wants a friend. You know what that will mean for law and order. For solving the question of play spaces for the children! Why, you take the kids and the cops and let them work together,

11

and the percentage of juvenile delinquency will be cut in half-yes, to a third. Ten kids can find play space where five have it to-day."

In the vigorous searching for a solution of the problem of playgrounds for the city child, has a better suggestion been made than is contained in this "Big Brother" offer of a New York police sergeant?

GUATEMALA

The Outlook on February 16 published an account, from facts stated by a correspondent in Guatemala, of the recent election-an account in harmony with the views of political dominance in that country held by most observers. It told how a unanimous election was secured by mobilizing all the citizens between twenty and sixty years of age, pinning on them buttons announcing their vote for the re-election of the present President, and then marching them past the election urn.

We now have from Mr. Roger W. Babson, writing from Guatemala, a protest, in which, while admitting that democracy in Central America is only a name, he says that the Republics are doing the best they can with the raw material at hand. Of course, however, as Mr. Babson adds, with eighty per cent of the people illiterate, democracy as we know it is practically impossible. Furthermore, Mr. Babson insists that President Cabrera "is a conscientious man with the best of purposes."

Other news via Mexico would indicate that Cabrera was far from commanding the entire confidence of the Guatemalans, that there has been an important defection in the army, and that another familiar Central American revolt, if not revolution, is impending.

THE POPE AND THE JEWS

In the name of millions of Jewish citizens of the United States, on December 30, 1915, the American Jewish Committee addressed a letter to Pope Benedict XV pleading for his intercession in alleviating the persecution to which the Jews in various lands have been subjected.

The Pope's reply, in a letter to the Committee from Cardinal Gasparri, Secretary of State to his Holiness, has just been made public. After some prelude the Pope declares :

As the head of the Catholic Church, which, faithful to its divine doctrine, . . . considers all men as brethren and teaches them to love one another, he will not cease to inculcate the ob servance among individuals, as among nations,

of the principles of natural right, and to reprove every violation of them. This right should be observed and respected in relation to the children of Israel as it should be to all men, for it would not conform to justice and to religion itself to derogate there from solely because of a difference of religious faith.

The letter then says:

Moreover, in his paternal heart, pained by the spectacle of the existing horrible war, the Supreme Pontiff feels in this moment more deeply than ever before the necessity that all men shall recollect that they are brothers and that their salvation lies in the return to the law of love, which is the law of the Gospels. He also desires to interest to this end all who, especially by reason of the sacred attributes of their pastoral ministrations, are able to bring efficient aid to this important result.

Finally :

In the meantime his Holiness rejoices in the unity which in civil matters exists in the United States of America among the members of different faiths and which contributes so powerfully to the peaceful prosperity of your great country.

We are not surprised to find the "American Hebrew," under the editorship of its new editor-in-chief, Hermann Bernstein, saying:

Among all the Papal bulls ever issued with regard to Jews, throughout the history of the Vatican, there is no statement that equals this direct, unmistakable plea for equality for the Jews, and against prejudice upon religious grounds. The bull issued by Innocent IV declaring the Jews innocent of the charge of using Christian blood for ritual purposes, while a remarkable document, was, after all, merely a statement of fact, whereas the present statement by Pope Benedict XV is a plea against religious prejudice and persecution.

THREE KINDS OF GERMAN SOCIALISTS

The present is one of the most noteworthy sessions of the German Parliament. It was expected to be so because of the assertion by the reactionaries that they would support the policy of" frightfulness." But, though the ambiguous measure finally adopted may mean anything, it does not indicate that the Parliament has gone on record definitely in that direction.

Far more important and significant was the resolution offered by the Progressists and Socialists reading, as telegraphed, as follows:

The Reichstag expresses the hope that in the employment of submarines everything will be

avoided which could injure the justifiable interests of neutral states and be susceptible of bringing about an aggravation or extension of the war.

66

Speaking concerning this, Deputy Haase, according to a despatch from Berlin printed in the New York Times," painted both economic and military conditions in such dark and unwelcome colors as to provoke a parliamentary storm. President Kämpf was forced to close the sitting.

Haase is a Socialist. He is so much esteemed that, though adhering to the minority or radical faction, he has remained President of the Socialist caucus. The majority faction. (the majority of Socialist members of Parliament, but, it would appear, not a majority of the whole Socialist voting constituency) have, as Herr Bernstein says, grown nearer and nearer to the non-Socialist parties; they are, to quote him, like men "who, after a long time in a room with closed windows, no longer notice that the air is close."

These conservative Socialists have been standing with the Government as to war credits. Not so the radical Socialists. They have steadily increased in numbers, but have now themselves split by the withdrawal from them of the extreme radicals, eighteen members of Parliament, led by Herr Haasethe main result of his now famous speech. They believe in calling a spade a spade and in telling the whole truth, as they see it. They are now known as Die Sozialdemokratische Arbeitsgemeinschaft, or the Socialist Labor Community. Among the eighteen may be found the names of Liebknecht. Bernstein, Stadthagen, and Zubeil. The Journal de Genève" declares that these men constitute the kernel of the Socialists of the future.

[ocr errors]

At all events, for the immediate present the German Socialists are divided into three factions. The official organ of the Social Democratic party, the well-known Berlin "Vorwärts," says, according to press despatches:

Party unity is the outgrowth of the historic necessity of the proletarian struggle and of the indestructible force of Socialistic ideals which will again weld together with irresistible strength all elements on Social Democratic principles as soon as the errors and confusion of this maritime warfare shall have been over

come.

These "errors and confusion" are causing what seem to us hopeful divisions in the

1916

TWO MEXICAN POLICIES

party of progress in Germany. It is all very well for a staid old historic daily like the Berlin "Vossische Zeitung" to call the latest Socialist faction "a small band of political desperadoes." But it is precisely this small band which recognizes a truth not yet recognized by "Tante Voss."

TWO MEXICAN POLICIES

Believing that the writer who appears in this issue under the pen name " McGregor" was the one who could give our readers the most sympathetic and skillful defense of President Wilson's Mexican policy, we requested him. to prepare the article that appears on another page. We have reason to believe that this interpretation is such as the President and his Cabinet would approve. More than that we are not authorized to say. We think our readers may be confident that "McGregor's " article is a strong statement of the case for the Administration.

This article bears on its face evidence that it is the work of an unqualified supporter of the Democratic Administration. It classifies those who disagree with the present method and policies as "joyous jingoes, temperamental tories, partisan politicians, and common commercialists." It declares that every one "whose partisanship really stops at the border" and who knows the facts will be convinced that President Wilson's policy is "logical, wise, and just." On the other hand, it does not stop "at the border" in its criticism of the preceding Republican Administration, for it applies to that Administration's activities such phrases as "dollar diplomacy tours," "brutal message," and "pure bluff." For the Wilson policy in Mexico this article plainly evinces only unaffected admiration.

This admiration is based on the belief that in using the power of the United States the President has been guided by his understanding of what constitutes the best interest of Mexico. We share that belief. But the powers granted to the President are not his personal property, but are the property of the American people and given to the President in trust for the American people.

The first duty of a government is to protect its own citizens in their lawful rights wherever they are. It is not to pass judg ment on their morals or their motives. worst criminal has rights which a civilized

The

13

government is bound to defend. It is certainly bound to defend the lawful rights of men, women, and children lawfully exercising their rights in their own lands or in foreign lands. This is a duty of which the Government cannot divest itself. If those who are in charge of the Government are unwilling to perform that duty, they should resign and give way to those who are willing to perform it.

For failure to perform this duty there is no justification in the plea of altruism and idealism. The idealism that leads to the neglect of homely duty is a false idealism. The altruism that is generous with other people's property and rights is not only a false altruism but is morally indefensible.

If a philanthropically minded trustee takes the money which has been put into his keeping for the support of his ward and gives it away to poor children, he is an unfit trustee. Though he be an altruist and an idealist, he should be removed, and a man with a keener sense of duty and honesty put in his place.

Americans lawfully in Mexico are entitled to protection. To deny this to them because the man who is for the time being the American President has certain honest beliefs as to "what constitutes the best interests of Mexico," or as to what the Mexicans should be allowed to do "to work out their own problem," or as to what is "necessary for the welfare of Mexico," is to substitute philanthropic impulses for the obligations of a trustee. The fundamental failure of President Wilson's Mexican policy is failure in this sense of trusteeship.

But this Government is trustee, not only for Americans, but also for Europeans in Mexico. Having, under the Monroe Doctrine, denied European nations the full exercise of sovereign powers to vindicate the rights of their citizens or subjects, the United States has assumed the obligation itself to protect those Europeans. It has no right to act the part of benevolent philanthropist at the expense of this obligation. Instead, however, of protecting these Europeans, the American Government has left Americans to be protected by European governments. When American war-ships were ordered away from Tampico, Americans were rescued by English and German naval officers. This is but one instance of many cases where Americans had to apply for protection to the representatives of European Powers. One does not need to be a partisan to hold that this

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

It might have been intelligible if the American Government had acknowledged itself too weak to protect its citizens, and therefore incapable of attempting any kind of intervention.

But it was not intelligible for the United States Government, while declining to intervene for the protection of its own citi zens, to intervene by both political and military means for the direction of the course of Mexican affairs. It is not childish but highly charitable to explain our intervention at Vera Cruz as an attempt to secure a salute for our flag. If we occupied Vera Cruz not for the sake of obtaining recognition of the rights of Americans which the flag symbolizes, then our occupation, was an outrageous use of the forces of the United States to carry out one individual's theory as to what man the Mexicans ought to have or ought not to have for President. We repeat that it is charitable to assert that we went to war with Huerta to obtain a salute to the flag and failed to obtain it. That is the best construction that can be put upon the Vera Cruz incident.

How is it possible to aver that the reason the Administration refused to intervene for the protection of Americans was that armed intervention" would infallibly have meant war upon the whole Mexican people," and "the probable sacrifice of all the Americans remaining in Mexico"? Twice we have resorted to armed intervention-once at Vera Cruz and once after the Columbus raid-and there has been no war upon the whole Mexican people, and no such sacrifice of American lives as there has been when we have kept to the policy of "watchful waiting." As a mater of fact, there has never been during the past three years a moment when intervention in behalf of American life (as distinct from intervention for the pursuit of one man, such as Huerta or Villa) would not have been amply justified and entirely consistent with good will towards and service of the Mexican people.

"McGregor" asks for an alternative policy We here submit it, repeating what we have said on other occasions :

1. Refusal to recognize Huerta-not, however, because of any theory as to what is best for the Mexicans, but because Huerta's government was neither a de jure government nor, since it did not give and could not give

protection to Americans and Mexicans alike, a de facto government.

2. Consultation with the A B C Governments-not to rescue us from a dilemma nor to decide what Mexican faction to support, but to let the A B C nations know that for our own protection and the protection of democracy against the contagion of anarchy we felt compelled to act, and to give them the opportunity of verifying our good faith by participation in the intervention to secure the ends aimed at.

3. Occupation of Vera Cruz-not, however, to obtain a salute or to drive from office any one individual, but to begin a policy of pacification.

4. Occupation of strategic points by small but competent forces of the regular army.

5. The organization of a Mexican constabulary in Mexican uniforms under the immediate command of Mexicans and directed by the American army officers, for the protection of all the residents in Mexico against the depredations of bandits, and for the establishment of such elements of government as are requisite for even the beginnings of democratic rule.

That our army, occupying such centers of protection and influence and so employed, would have been welcomed and supported by the overwhelming majority of the Mexican people we have from the beginning been convinced. It was so welcomed and supported by the people of Cuba when it was given the same task. And this conviction has been proved sound by the good will shown to the army after the first week of occupation, at Vera Cruz, and by the welcome and friendliness evinced toward American soldiers (as described by Mr. Mason in The Outlook last week) under the much more difficult and dangerous circumstances surrounding the pursuit of Villa. Against such a proceeding the American Government would encounter the opposition only of those self-seeking Mexican politicians who, like the same sort of politicians in the Philippines, have been the greatest obstacle to progress and real democracy.

Such a policy, quietly and firmly carried out, would have the support of ample precedent, would have involved little bloodshed, would have required only a small force (much smaller than is now employed in trying to catch a single elusive bandit), and would have been alike a protection to Americans in Mexico, an effective defense of the American border against such raiders as attacked Co

1916

SHAKESPEARE IN CHICAGO

lumbus, New Mexico, and the greatest possible service to the cause of liberty and civilization among the Mexicans themselves.

Sooner or later the United States Government will have to undertake some such policy as this. It has been made much more difficult by the withdrawal from Vera Cruz, the continued abandonment of Americans in Mexico, the ignoring of the claims of Europeans upon us, and, finally, the so-called "punitive expedition." Every month that the policy of pacification is put off the task will be made harder, and meantime lives will be lost, property destroyed and wasted, and suspicion in Mexico (if not in all Latin America) intensified. No such policy is to be expected from the present Administration. Its whole point of view is contrary to it. Some day some Administration with a keener sense of American rights and a sounder view of real democracy will undertake it.

HIT OR MISS

From now until the meeting of the great party conventions this summer, and then again until next November, the voters will strive, urge, and argue over the question, Who shall be the next President? But is any one now concerned seriously with the question, Who shall be the next Vice-President? Indeed, the Vice-Presidency has almost become one of the National jokes. We choose our candidates for this office on the hitor-miss plan; we expect little of them; and too often we get less than we expected.

The list of Vice-Presidents who have actually succeeded through the death of a President to the Presidency (five in number) is not discreditable; at least this may be said of it-that it is incomparably better than a list one could easily make of Vice-Presidents who might have been thrown into the Presidency by fate and, most happily in every sense, were

not.

We have taken too many chances in this matter of the Vice-Presidency. It is dangerous and weak to stake our political all on the life of one man. The Vice-President should always be a man of real Presidential caliber. It would be a high public service for such a man-say a man who stood second in the balloting for the Presidential candidacy— to accept a Vice-Presidential nomination, and thereby dignify and strengthen the country's ideal of the office.

15

SHAKESPEARE IN CHICAGO

A judge of the Cook County Circuit Court has put Shakespeare in his proper place. Incidentally he has vindicated the copious claims of those who have asserted that Francis Bacon was the author, not only of the works which he was gracious enough to sign, but also of a wealth of plays with which he found it impolitic to associate his illustrious name. Judge Richard S. Tuthill is the legal luminary who has settled for all time this momentous question. In the newspaper reports of his decision it appears that the Judge gave great weight to the fact that Shakespeare "was not an educated man," that he also took into consideration the fact that Francis Bacon "was educated not only in English, French, Latin, Greek, Italian, German, and that he had a general education the equal of or superior to any man of his age." Next to this momentous fact it appears that one of the Baconian ciphers also had due influence with the Court. At any rate, the evidence seems to have convinced Judge Tuthill that he was justified in covering with the mantle of the law the clattering skeleton of the Baconian myth.

We have not yet secured an official transcript of Judge Tuthill's decision, and so perhaps we are justified in maintaining a certain attitude of skepticism towards the epochmaking quality of his judicial edict. Perhaps when we have secured this official transcript (if we do) we shall feel it our duty to file it (mentally at least) in silent state beside the verdict of that other Chicago Judge who found that Rostand plagiarized "Cyrano de Bergerac" from the writings of a Chicago real estate agent.

Doubtless the public will hear more of Judge Tuthill's decision, for it was given in a suit brought by a moving-picture concern against a writer who was about to issue a book containing proofs of Bacon's authorship of Shakespeare's plays. The moving-picture concern felt itself aggrieved by the approaching explosion of the Shakespearean legend, because it was praiseworthily intending to perpetuate Shakespeare's fame by putting his plays upon the screen. Because it sued out an improvident injunction against the champion of Francis Bacon, Judge Tuthill awarded the latter gentleman a verdict of five thousand dollars. The press agents of the moving-picture company, of course, have done their best to conceal this fact from

« AnteriorContinuar »