You may find here JUST THE BOOK you want for your own pleasure or as a gift for a friend My Year of The Great War Author of "With Kuroki in Manchuria," This is the book about the British Army in the war. Frederick Palmer was selected by Lord Kitchener as the only American war correspondent to go to British headquarters in France; and for a long time he was the only American correspondent permitted to visit the British lines. To say that Mr. Palmer has had exceptional opportunities is putting it mildly-he has had opportunities given to no other man. And he has made good use of them. For graphic sketches that take the reader right to the front, and for a wide comprehensive view that only a man with a grasp for big things could obtain, Mr. Palmer's book is the best by any war correspondent. $1.50 net. Interpretations of Literature By LAFCADIO HEARN The Real By J. A. HAMMERTON Says the distinguished English critic, Sir W. Robertson Nicoll, "It is out of sight the best book ever written on the Argentine." Illustrated. $2.50 net. The South By W. H. KOEBEL A timely and valuable discus- The Life of Bernal Diaz By R. B. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM Based on Castillo's True History of the Conquest of New Spain, which has reposed unmolested for years in Guatemala. A valuable addition to the history of the Conquest of Mexico, written by Cortes' right hand man. Illustrated. $2.00 net. THE FALL LITERARY SUPPLEMENT of The New Republic NEXT WEEK An Illustrated Catalogue of New Books sent to any address upon application DODD, MEAD & COMPANY 443 Fourth Avenue New York REPUBLIC VOLUME V A Journal of Opinion New York, Saturday, November 13, 1915 HE President has seen fit to quote Ezekiel in in support of his new gospel of preparedness. Chapter XXXIII, verses 2-6, gives the curse to the watchman who sees the sword come and blows not the trumpet. It may have been inadvertence that the President did not quote at the same time the exactly parallel verses in the very next chapter, which read as follows: Number 54 5 And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd; and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. 6 My sheep wandered through all the mountains and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them. Evidently if Ezekiel was a strong believer in preparedness he was not less a believer in the social reconstruction, the national organization for a civilized peace which makes a people integrated and vigorous. If we are to have Ezekiel's gospel from the President, let us insist that we have all of it. M 2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds: Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? 3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed; but ye feed not the flock. 4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. ness. R. BRYAN'S statement in regard to the President's armament plans rested on two ideas. The one was that the President's opinion is no more than that of an individual; he speaks for himself alone. The other was that the President had given no good reason why we should depart from our traditional policy of military unpreparedThe two ideas are more closely related than they seem. Had the President's speech been that of a real national leader, it would have supplied the very reasons which Mr. Bryan misses in the speech at the Manhattan Club. But the President chose not to lead American opinion. He preferred to linger in the realm of those perfect sentiments where Mr. Bryan is more thoroughly at home than Mr. Wilson himself. Naturally Mr. Bryan is puzzled. The President seems to assume all that a good Bryanite assumes; his conception of international tasks and forces seems to differ not a jot from Mr. Bryan's. How then could Mr. Bryan fail to ask: If you feel about these things as I do, why do you wish to act so differently? Had Mr. Wilson stated frankly that the world which America faces is a different world from that in which he and Mr. Bryan were reared; had he specified the new obligations and the new problems which have to be met, he might not have convinced Mr. Bryan, but he would at least have defined the issue. S ECRETARY LANSING'S latest note of protest to the British government is an able and searching statement of the American grievance against the British embargo, but it has one grave and necessary defect. The real issue between the two governments is implied in the argument rather than expressly stated. Mr. Lansing argues that the British embargo and its method of administration has no justification in international law, and we are unable to see how this argument can be effectively answered. Candid Englishmen admit that the behavior of their government is indefensible on purely legal grounds. They admit that the old rules have been violated. What they contend is that they are justified in laying down new ones. The present war is being waged under novel conditions, and unless new rules are devised to meet them Great Britain will be deprived of the military advantage which she is entitled to by her control of the sea. Thus the controversy turns upon the proper source of the system of control which is applied to neutral commerce during war. The United States refuses to recognize any obligation to submit to British interference with her commerce except as justified by the previously existing law of nations. Great Britain by virtue of her naval predominance is claiming legislative power on the seas and the right to adopt any measures restrictive of commerce which will be injurious to her enemies. If the United States submits to the British contention, British Orders in Council during war will become the chief source of marine law, which would be intolerable for all neutral trading nations. If Great Britain submits to the American contention, a really effective blockade of Germany would be difficult if not impossible. Neither government proposes to yield, and the important questions are which government can make its position practically effective, and what are the merits of the controversy. S O far as the immediate trade controversy is concerned, the British government has much the better chance of making its position practically effective. It has the decisive advantage of the strategic initiative. Its navy dominates the seas and is seizing neutral ships and suppressing neutral commerce according to its theory of the law. If it does not yield to American protests, as apparently it has no intention of doing, the United States must either submit for the time being or prepare to answer in kind. There is talk about arbitration; but the underlying controversy is not one which can be settled by any court of arbitration established between two governments. It concerns the whole world, and raises an international question as to the source of the marine law of the future both in peace and in war. Specific issues and instances contained in the American note can be arbitrated, but not the general contention of the United States that the legislative power on the high seas must be international rather than national. The real alternatives for the United States are, as we have said, either temporary submission with the full intention of renewing the controversy at a more favorable time, or the adoption of coercive measures. Yet even this alternative is not real, because American public opinion is not willing to use its power of coercion. The threat of an embargo on exports might bring Great Britain to terms, but the threat will not and should not be made; and whatever reason may be given officially for not making it, the essential reason is simple and decisive. Great Britain and the United States are to a very exceptional extent interdependent countries. They cannot afford to quarrel. They have every reason to coöperate. In relation to the issues raised by the war, American sympathies are, on the balance, pro-Ally. The United States is neutral and justifiably neutral, but it is benevolently neutral. So far as we have any discretion, we do not propose seriously to embarrass Great Britain and France during their desperate contest with a ruthless and terrifying enemy. WHILE HILE the United States does not propose seriously to embarrass Great Britain during the existing crisis, neither does it propose to yield to the British contention that marine law during war shall be determined by the military interests of the dominant sea power. To attach such a valuable privilege to the control of the seas would be to encourage and to necessitate the future competitive building of fleets against Great Britain by all powers whose prosperity depended on foreign trade. It would be a justification of the German claim that the triumphant sea power of Great Britain was only another name for an excessive measure of world dominion. If Great Britain should persist in her present attitude after the war is over, she will forfeit the good will of the United States, and in general, the confidence of pacific commercial nations. She will be standing in the way of the construction of a substantial and permanent system of coöperating rather than competing nations. Such a system will be deprived of all real serviceability unless the joint interests of the several nations are expressed in a body of marine law operative both in war and peace, determined either by joint consent or by some common legislative authority, and sustained by the naval forces of the whole federation. A system of this kind provides the only method of giving to the phrase "freedom of the seas" any effective meaning. It was implied in the protest of the United States against the German submarine campaign. It is no less implied by the protest against the equally lawless Orders in Council of the British government. And it is a contention to which the British people will eventually agree, unless they wish to invite competition in naval armament, and in the end forfeit the friendship of the United States.ally good this year. And the normal harvest even in Germany is sufficient to maintain the population on a reduced scale such as that to which the Germans have now become accustomed. The chief sufferers are the higher-paid workers and the lowersalaried classes. Prices have advanced, largely in consequence of inflation in media of exchange, and wages and salaries have not advanced proportionately. History affords an abundance of parallels. In France of the Revolution, most of the necessaries of life advanced one thousand per cent, while wages remained stationary. In our own Civil War times wages advanced fifty per cent while prices advanced two hundred per cent. In comparison the German workman is faring very well. T HERE is something uncanny in the collocation of the words " compulsory " and " education." What has been wrong with school, child, home, neighborhood, that a constabulary has had to be invoked to secure attendance at school? And what of the child physically present in the schoolroom who is too often mentally and spiritually truant, his non-attendance in that degree as mischievous as any? Every fresh sign that truancy is coming to be regarded less as a sign of juvenile depravity and more as a deep-rooted symptom of wrong conditions is reassuring. In a report published by the Public Education Association of New York the stated causes of truancy are based on mental and physical tests of the truants and an examination of home and neighborhood conditions. The report deduces the need of more medical and social supervision of the laggards and less of police performThis conclusion is in line with the proposals of the New York City Mayor's Committee on Vocational Help to Minors, which looks to the formation of child-welfare and guidance committees with the purpose of ministering to the children before they become problems. It is also in line with the proposed readjustments which the New York school system, and indeed all forward-looking school systems, are seeking to effect away from the old drillbench-textbook road to learning. What the home and school visitor, the play teacher, the vocational counselor, the school nurse and physician, and a vitalized school program itself may yet do is a matter to engage the serious thought of a democracy. School attendance can be made the most appealing experience in the lives of children, normal and subnormal alike, if school authorities accept the challenge implied in the very existence of truancy. ance. D R. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON has written an article for the New York Age, a negro weekly, on the American occupation of Hayti. The article has a double purpose-to interpret our government action for those who are worried about the future of Hayti, and to warn and advise the American people in regard to the task they are undertaking. Dr. Washington, it seems to us, puts his finger on the decisive point when he says that the Haytians distrust us because of our treatment of negroes, and that whether we can work with them successfully will depend upon the kind of men we send to the island. "The racial lines which are drawn in this and other countries will not be toler ated in Hayti," says Dr. Washington, " and American white men who go there should understand this. They must fit themselves to be white men in a black man's country if they want to live there and work there and have any influence there." Dr. Washington makes it clear that he is not advocating “hands off" in Hayti. I also hope that the United States will not pursue a mere negative policy in Hayti, that is, a policy of controlling the customs and what not, and without going further in progressive constructive directions I hope some way will be provided by which a portion of the revenues will be used in giving the people a thorough up-to-date system of common school agricultural and industrial education. Here is an excellent opportunity for some of the young colored men and women-to go to Hayti and help their fellows. Whether this can be done officially under the proposed treaty is doubtful. That it should be done unofficially is certain. Our mission in Hayti is to strengthen Hayti so that intervention is unnecessary. The way to do that is not only to supervise finance, but to build up, as Dr. Washington says, powerful native economic interests based on an educated population. D R. WASHINGTON'S expressed attitude towards Hayti shows more clearly than any amount of argument that it is possible to be interested in the people of another country without hyphenating your citizenship. In acting as a mediator between Hayti and the United States Dr. Washington does a real service to both countries. No one will say that he is not a good American because his point of view about Haytian negroes is not that of all other Americans. No one can assert that to be unhyphenated is to agree with everything that a majority of Americans happen to believe. We are a nation often desperately ignorant of people unlike ourselves, but in the mixture of our population we have the resources of correcting our prejudices. It is altogether fitting that American negroes should speak out in behalf of Haytian negroes, or Americans of German origin in behalf of Germany. Not only should we never dispute this right; we should welcome it with joy. The quarrel with the hyphenate becomes reasonable when his interest in a foreign country rises to a point where he is willing to prostitute the American government to it. While he remains an interpreter and a propagandist he serves the American people, even though the American people disagree with him. I T is none the less of great significance that the German workingmen are manifesting their discontent and that the government permits the Socialist and liberal press to discuss the situation frankly. A huge debt of social unrest has been accumulating during the war. Some part of it is now falling due. The government has not been able to proceed of its own initiative against the rapacity of the purveyors of food, backed by the great landed interest. Food riots and an active agitation conducted by the press are essential to the government's project of taking over control of all the important articles of food. The proletariat and the government in an informal league against vested interests -this seems almost an incredible political development for Germany. But with the progress of the war such developments are likely to become increasingly familiar. Property will have to be made to pay, and the government will need all the support it can get from the non-propertied classes. C Evasions by Mr. Wilson AREFUL study was said to have gone into the President's speech of November 4th on preparedness. The only result of this study seems to have been to eliminate from the utterance every point that could enlighten the country in any way. A speech more resolutely confined to platitudes, to large and dull abstractions, has rarely been offered to an anxious nation. Not a single issue faced, not a doubtful point cleared up-nothing but a request for unanimous support on a program which by its sheer magnitude is one of the great events in modern history. The President is going to ask for men and money to create an armament which will give us a deciding rôle in the councils of the world, and he introduces that request with phrases in which no one can possibly discover a concrete meaning. It leaves us in the dark; it will leave other nations in the dark. "Our principles are well known," says the President, " it is not necessary to avow them again." One of our principles is entitled the Monroe Doctrine; Mr. Wilson refers to it when he states that " for ourselves we wish nothing but the full liberty of self-development; and with ourselves in this great matter we associate all the peoples of our own hemisphere." But how will a Mexican or Haytian read those sentences? What will Germany or England read into the phrase "full liberty of selfdevelopment?" These are not academic questions. They have harassed Mr. Wilson's own administration. When he insisted on ousting Huerta, when he demanded a constitutional election in Mexico, when he proposed to supervise Haytian finance, he was presumably acting on the principles that are "well known." Presumably his policies have been devoted to the "full liberty of self-development "; presumably what Mr. Wilson says is to be judged by what he has done. Who then will have the audacity to say that the principles have been clear? Obviously they have not been clear, for Mr. Wilson has changed his mind and his policy several times. So when he comes before us and asks for additional force to support his principles, he leaves us with the uncomfortable feeling that we are to strengthen a government whose objects are not well known even to itself. To tell us that we represent liberty, justice, etc., is all very well, but in actual practice it is almost as useful as telling the captain of a ship about to leave port that he should steer his course straight for the happiness of mankind. Task A foreign diplomat reading the speech might ask himself what we mean by preparing to vin'dicate our right to independent and unmolested action." He would look at the Far East, gaze upon the Closing Door, and then inquire whether the United States in building the second greatest navy was preparing to vindicate "rights" out there. He would remember Mr. Wilson's speech at Mobile, and the thought would arise whether the "right to independent and unmolested action" included an intention to prevent European capitalists from securing concessions in Latin-America. He would wish to know what these fine sentiments actually implied. Shall not we who are to pay for and comprise this armament ask the same questions? Can a self-respecting democracy fail to ask them? If the underlying principle of preparedness is to base armaments on policy, then the President has failed to explain his program. But there are other standards by which preparedness must be judged. After asking what preparedness is for, we must ask how preparedness is to be financed. On this point Mr. Wilson is silent. He does not indicate whether we are to arm by borrowing on the future or by paying as we go. We fear and suspect that the |