Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the letter of this law, we have violated in our dealings with Mexico. We have destroyed one government by refusing to recognize Huerta; we have tried to put another government in its place by recognizing Carranza. Mr. Lansing has declared, and his concise history of the last three years has demonstrated the truth of his declaration, that this Carranza government is not worthy of the name, because it has failed to perform the paramount obligation for which governments are organized. Under the régime which we have helped to impose upon Mexico, northwestern Chihuahua has had seven governments in five years. No " regrettable consequences" which might result from a strong, just, and beneficent government administered by America could conceivably compare with the "regrettable consequences" which have ensued from our policy of intermeddling without intervention.

Our young men are going down to Mexico, summoned by the President, to protect our borders from marauders. They are going loyally because the President calls them and he is the President; but the Nation is not responding in any such spirit of enthusiasm to the call of President Wilson as that with which it responded in 1898 to the call of President McKinley. This is not because McKinley was a Republican and Wilson is a Democrat; it is because when Wilson calls Americans he publicly disavows any intention to use the power of America for the service of its unfortunate neighbor, and when McKinley called Americans he called them specifically to deliver a neighbor suffering under the intolerable burden of a foreign despotism. Mr. Mason's article in The Outlook last week, giving an account of the American "Crusaders of To-Day," demonstrates that the spirit of chivalry is not extinct in the hearts of the American people. We ought to send an army to Mexico, not to fight the Mexicans, but to protect them; not to make war, but to end war; not to govern them, but to lay the foundations for selfgovernment, to feed the hungry, to heal the sick, to protect the defenseless, to make possible the rehabilitation of industry, to fulfill for the time being what Mr. Lansing rightly says is the first duty of any government-the protection of life and property-and then to enable the people, under rulers of their own choosing, to organize a government able and willing to fulfill this paramount obligation.

PREPAREDNESS AND THE

PRESIDENT

On December 8, 1914, when the military and civic experts of the country were urging a policy of systematic preparedness, the President said in his Message to Congress that all this was the talk of nervous and excited" people.

As a

To-day he is practically making war on Mexico, and is calling on the National Guard as the second line of defense to the regular army, which he and his party in Congress have up to within a few days kept in a state of military weakness. All praise is due to the young men of the National Guard who have responded to the call. But there is every evidence that the enlisted men of the National Guard are being sent to the border improperly trained and equipped. part of this evidence, we quote the following statement made by Mayor Mitchel, of the city of New York, on Tuesday of last week at a meeting called to discuss the situation. Mayor Mitchel is the best administrative officer that New York City has had for a quarter of a century. He knows something about military affairs, for he was a "rookie" at Plattsburg last year, and has made, as well, a careful study of military history and technique, and what he says cannot be ascribed to partisan antipathy, for he is a Democrat and has been a supporter of President Wilson: I don't suppose anything could more clearly demonstrate the present prostrate condition of this country than what is going on in this city and in this State and in other States to-day, where we see the men of the National Guard called to the concentration camps. These fellows, the finest in the country, are responding, only to find when they go out that they are without equipment, without horses, and without the facilities for a successful campaign.

I want to say that the Government that sends these young men, unequipped as they are, down to Mexico with any expectation that they will accomplish results is exposing them to the same risk and jeopardy that the first force that went from England was exposed to, and if something of the same kind happens we have only the American people and them to thank for it.

The most important thing, to my mind, is to call for organization throughout the country to secure from Congress adequate legislation, and, if need be, to secure a Congress that will enact adequate legislation. Just as the pacifism and indifference of the sitting Congress is non-partisan, so the movement to obtain a Congress that will enact adequate legislation ought to be

1916

THE TEST OF COURAGE

non-partisan. We don't care-I don't, at all events-whether the men who go there pledged to real defensive legislation are Democrats, Republicans, Progressives, or what you will. I firmly believe the situation that this country faces, and the greater situation that eventually it will face in the future, transcend all parties and party considerations; that it is the future of the American Republic that is at stake, and men can decide that question irrespective of party.

Mayor Mitchel's words ought to be read by every thoughtful citizen in this country. The man who is responsible for the situation which he has described is the President of the United States. It is all very well to cry, "Support the President." But how can he have whole-hearted support from those men whose sons and brothers and friends are going to the border to suffer from disease, lack of food, lack of munitions, and lack of equipment, and who were called "nervous and excited" when they protested and prophesied eighteen months ago that this was exactly what was going to happen?

The only real step in the direction of preparedness for this country to-day is to turn out the men who are the direct cause of all the present deadly inefficiency, and elect those who are competent and determined to remedy, as far as possible, the terrible mistakes of the last two years and to prevent their repetition in the future.

THE TEST OF COURAGE

In all great crises phrases are born. Real phrases are not manufactured; they sum up and express great experiences. Such a phrase is that which was used by General Gallieni, quoted in The Outlook of June 14: “Jusqu'au bout!" When a year ago he was attacked by a grave illness which a slight operation and a short but immediate rest would have cured, he declined to drop his work, saying, "A chief must set an example in war time, and go 'jusqu'au bout!"—that is, to the very end. Unconsciously or instinctively, as brave men do, the savior of Paris "not only struck a great note but announced a great principle of life in those words. It is the men who go to the very end" who are in every generation the saviors of society; they preserve it from stagnation; they redeem it from corruption. It is undeniable that there is a downward sag in society, that it is im

531

possible to build society on so strong a basis that it will automatically remain pure and vigorous. Society must be saved in every generation. It is impossible to capitalize it so strongly that it can rest safely on its accumulated moral strength.

It has been shown many times in the commercial world that a business house cannot be built so strongly that it will go on by its own momentum after the men who have created it have passed away. It will go on for a time, but with subsiding energy, and ultimately, unless its strength is renewed in the newer generations, it will end in bankruptcy. The attempt to establish society so that it can rest on its oars, so to speak, is doomed to failure; because the "power not of ourselves which makes for righteousness" seems to take very little interest in ease and prosperity and an enormous interest in the establishment of righteousness. "Morality," Lord Morley once said, " is not in the nature of things; it is the nature of things," and morality is a daily and hourly reassertion, in definition and conduct, of righteousness.

The testing of courage is not the moment when the charge is made with ringing bugles and the impetus and inspiration of a great strain onward; it is when the inspiration of action has been lost; when all the conditions are full of disillusion, and few see clearly on account of the depression and monotony; and only they are heroically strengthened who are steadfast in the faith in which they began the fight-loyal to the very end. No one who reads the reports that come from the battlefields of Europe can have the slightest idea of the stolid and almost despairing loyalty with which millions of men are now living in the mud, standing fast with grim determination, though with hardly a glimpse of victory. These are the real heroes of the war; and these are its blackest hours. In every great struggle, national or individual, the crisis comes, not when the danger seems most imminent, but when the inspiration has ebbed; and men stand fast, not because they see that they are gaining ground, but because they have pledged themselves to stand fast to the very end. And no careers are more inspiring than those of the men who, like Cavour, have stood year after year, through long-continued and paralyzing discouragements and defeats, resolutely to the very end. Victory waits for such men and rewards them.

W

HEN Mr. Roosevelt telegraphed to the Progressive Convention his "conditional refusal " of the nomiination, there were some Progressives who thought that he might yet possibly be persuaded to run against Mr. Hughes. These Progressives were solicitous for the preservation of their party, and they felt that that was the paramount issue. Most of the Progressives, however, felt that the paramount issues were those forced upon the country by the European war. In this respect they agreed with what Mr. Roosevelt himself had been saying for months. The Progressive National Committee represented the will of the majority by voting, on Monday, June 26, to make no nomination, but to indorse Mr. Hughes.

In his letter making final his decision not to run, Mr. Roosevelt put before the Progressive National Committee and before the country the reasons for his decision. In 1912 events proved, he said, that the Progressive party offered the only alternative to Democratic success, and since 1912 the principles for which the Progressive party stood have been given a tremendous impetus by what that party has done. It had become evident in the meantime, however, that the Progressive party had ceased to be a means by which those ideals could be put into effect. "Under such circumstances," said Mr. Roosevelt, "our duty is to do the best we can, and not to sulk because our leadership is rejected. . . . It is unpatriotic to refuse to do the best possible merely because the people have not put us in a position to do what we regard as the very best." In Mr. Roosevelt's opinion, the present Administration has been "guilty of shortcomings more signal than those of any Administration since the days of Buchanan." It has relaxed the spring of the National will and deadened the National conscience. In that conviction he had spoken again and again on behalf of the reunion of the opposition to the Democratic party under a leadership that would stand for Americanism and preparedness. If the Republicans refused to provide such leadership, he had been prepared to accept the proposed Progressive nomination himself. Whether he would accept or not, it had been impossible for him to tell in advance. "In my judgment," wrote Mr. Roosevelt," the nomination of Mr. Hughes meets the conditions set forth in a statement of the Progressive National Committee issued last January and in my own statements."

In March Mr. Roosevelt had said that he was concerned that there should be a unity of forces under a candidate who would not only stand on a platform of National Americanism, but would in good faith put it through if elected. Mr. Hughes's record, in Mr. Roosevelt's opinion, is a guarantee that he will do just that. As to the support of Mr. Hughes by professional German-Americans of the so-called German-American alliances, Mr. Roosevelt had this to say:

I believe that the attitude of these professional German-Americans was due, not in the least to any liking for Mr. Hughes, but solely to their antagonism to me. . . . These men may have nothing in common with the great body of Americans who are in whole or in part of German blood, and who are precisely as good Americans as those of any other ancestry. . . . No good American, whatever his ancestry or creed, can have any feeling except scorn and detestation for those professional GermanAmericans who seek to make the American President in effect a viceroy of the German Emperor.

The professional German-Americans of this type are acting purely in the sinister interest of Germany. They have shown their eager readiness to sacrifice the interest of the United States whenever its interest conflicted with that of Germany. They represent that adherence to the politico-racial hyphen which is the badge. and sign of moral treason to the Republic. I have singled these men out for specific denunciation, and assuredly if I support a candidate it may be accepted as proof that I am certain that the candidate is incapable of being influenced by the evil intrigues of these hyphenated Americans.

Mr. Hughes's character and his whole course of conduct in public affairs justify us in the assured conviction that the fact that these men have for their own purposes supported him will in no shape or way affect his public actions before or after election. His entire public life is a guarantee of this.

Mr. Roosevelt then proceeded to contrast with this record of Mr. Hughes the three years of Mr. Wilson's Administration. He declared that in Mr. Wilson's case we do not have to consider his words, but his deeds; that the trouble caused by the professional GermanAmericans was due to Mr. Wilson's timid and vacillating course;" that the very existence of the European war made it easier for Mr. Wilson to assert our rights than if he had had to deal with a strong Power unhampered by war; that courage, resolution, and judgment could have put a stop to the murder of

HUGHES, ROOSEVELT, AND UNION

American men, women, and children; that the members of the Republican Convention were induced to nominate Mr. Hughes because his integrity, character, and record would make him acceptable to the country. "I do not believe that Mr. Hughes would have been nominated,” Mr. Roosevelt added, “if it had not been for the fight on behalf of public decency and efficiency which the Progressive party has waged during the past four years."

Asking his fellow-Progressives to disregard personal feelings and political fortunes, and to consider only the welfare of the whole country, Mr. Roosevelt warns them that "no man can tell what trial and jeopardy will have to be faced by this Nation during the years immediately ahead." There is only one question before the country-" whether during these possibly vital years this country shall be intrusted to the leadership of Mr. Hughes or Mr. Wilson." In Mr. Roosevelt's view, Mr. Wilson and his party "have brought us to impotence abroad and to division and weakness at home. . . . They have taught us that peace . . . is to be put above righteousness. . . Yet in Mexico

they have failed even to secure the peace which they thus sought. . . . They have raised indecision, hesitancy, and vacillation into a settled Government policy." In contrast, Mr. Roosevelt places the record of Mr. Hughes, which has shown him to have "the instinct of efficiency," the habit of translating words into facts, which warrants the belief that he will be the unfaltering opponent of invisible government, and which proves him to be a man of unbending integrity and original and trained ability. Mr. Roosevelt, therefore, earnestly bespeaks from his fellow-Progressives" their ungrudg ing support of Mr. Hughes."

This letter of Mr. Roosevelt's has been accepted for publication in the "Congressional Record," and is therefore to be a public document.

[ocr errors]

In words that are no less generous because they are just Mr. Hughes at once expressed to Mr. Roosevelt his appreciation of Mr. Roosevelt's indorsement and his recognition of the lasting indebtedness of the Nation" to Mr. Roosevelt "for the quickening of the National spirit, for the demand for an out-andout-one hundred per cent-Americanism, and for the insistence upon the immediate necessity of a thoroughgoing preparedness, spiritual, military, and economic." To this end

533

there must be, Mr. Hughes said, a united party "reconsecrated to its loftiest ideal." In this message, which he sent by messenger to Oyster Bay, Mr. Hughes wrote to Mr. Roosevelt :

You have sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat. And I want you to feel that I wish to have all the aid that you are able and willing to give. I want the most effective co-operation with all those who have been fighting by your side. Let us work together for our National security and for the peace of righteousness and justice.

In addition, Mr. Hughes at once sent to the Progressive National Committee a telegram which, like Mr. Roosevelt's letter, ought to be made accessible to every voter. Like Mr. Roosevelt, he is profoundly convinced that by prompt and decisive action the Lusitania tragedy would have been prevented, and he holds the Administration responsible for the use of our soil as a base for alien intrigues. He quoted from Mr. Lansing's note to Carranza a description of conditions in Mexico (the same passage which The Outlook quoted in its editorial last week), and declared that that passage was an indictment of the Administration's Mexican policy by the Administration itself. He pointed out that support of the Government in such a situation as the present one does not mean approval of the course of the Administration. He expressed his profound belief in the effort to improve conditions of labor, to protect women and children, to conserve natural resources, and to lay underneath every effort to promote social justice “a stable foundation for honorable enterprise." He urged the necessity of rescuing commerce from uncertainty and confusion, and of showing that we know how to protect the public without crippling our productive energies.

"To what agency," asked Mr. Hughes, "shall we look for the essential, constructive programme on which our security and prosperity must depend? It is vain to expect it from the Democratic party. That party has not the National outlook. . . . We must make the Republican party the instrument of our advance. We want deeds, not words. . . . The Progressives have insisted on responsible, not invisible, government; on efficient administration. I yield to no one in that demand. . . . I find no difference in platform or in aim which precludes the most hearty co-operation and the most complete unity. It is within the party that the liberal

izing spirit you invoke can have the widest and most effective influence."

As a separate political organization the Progressive party will not figure in this National campaign. As an influence revolutionizing the thought and action of the country, it has been and will continue to be, perhaps, the most powerful single factor in this campaign. To have continued it as a separate party, with its own candidate, would have been to destroy its power and to frustrate its purpose. If in 1860 the Whig party had nominated a

candidate opposed to the extension of slavery and devoted to the preservation of the Union, it is inconceivable that Abraham Lincoln would have insured the election of a proslavery and secession candidate by running on an opposing ticket. Those who regard the present crisis as one affecting the unity and security of the country, threatened by disloyalty and disregard of National duty from within and by aggression from without, will be thankful that there is no such division of forces that will make the issue confused.

“I

WAR WITH MEXICO?

A POLL OF THE PAN-AMERICAN PRESS

T appears almost certain that the American public is going to be forced, very much against its will, to learn a great deal concerning the geography, and particularly the topography, of northern Mexico." So says the "News" of Greensboro, North Carolina. This is a natural remark. has but to review the history of the present Administration at Washington as affected by Mexico to realize it. That history is thus chronicled by the Minneapolis "Journal:"

One

Mr. Wilson began by ordering Americans to abandon their livelihood and their property in Mexico. . . . He ordered an American cruiser out of Tampico, leaving the task of rescuing imperiled refugees to British and German warships. He demanded a salute from Huerta, and never got it. He occupied Vera Cruz, squeezed Huerta out of power, and then abandoned the port. . . . He favored Villa and then Carranza, meanwhile facilitating the arming and equipping of first one and then the other. He permitted insult and outrage along the border, and wholly ignored the Santa Ysabel massacre. Then came the Columbus raid with its . . . "punitive expedition."

THE CARRIZAL PRISONERS

The latest event to complicate the international situation was a bloody encounter at Carrizal in which some American soldiers were killed and others taken prisoners. Says the New York "Globe :"

American troops are in Mexico because armed men coming from Mexico have repeatedly invaded the United States. . . . The status of our punitive expedition is practically the same as that of the international punitive expedition that went to Peking when the legations were besieged by insurrectionary Chinese. Practically every

civilized country then took it for granted that if the Chinese Government was not able to protect the legations the right to protect them existed elsewhere. It was not deemed that the landing of the allied force was in any way a violation of Chinese sovereignty.... The American troops are in Mexico with right, and, being there with right, they are not subject to the peremptory orders of Carranza.

MR. LANSING'S NOTES: TO CARRANZA

Our case against Mexico was outlined in the note of Mr. Robert Lansing, Secretary of State, to General Carranza, reported last week in The Outlook. Replying to Carranza's demand that American troops be removed from Mexican territory, the note sums up all that has passed before in the way of official dispute, and, as the Carranza Government has shown itself incapable of protecting our border against Mexican bandits, declines to withdraw our troops. Among other papers, the Grand Rapid "News" notes that insincerity on the part of the Carranza Government is more than hinted at. The "News" continues :

Although assurance has been given that American lives would be protected by the Carranza Government, no steps have been taken to protect them, and both the lives and the property of American citizens have been destroyed.

From the moment of Carranza's official recognition by the President he has had the unqualified support of this Government. But Carranza has double-crossed the Administration at Washing ton beyond the shadow of a doubt. . . .

He could not unite the various factions of Mexico excepting in one common cause-war (Continued on page following illustrations)

« AnteriorContinuar »