Page images
PDF
EPUB

ence.

the country surrounding their ancient landmark. They have exhausted its sources of moral subsistUnless they prefer to stand still they must break away and lay out a new route in comparatively unexplored country. The laying out of such a route is imposed upon Americans because they claim to be a self-governing democracy. If they refuse to move on they will forfeit their right to be called a democracy, because they will refuse to assume responsibility for their own behavior and destiny. They will be shirking the opportunity to exercise control over their own collective life. But when they move on, as, willy nilly, they must, they can show that they have profited by their prosperous sojourn under the shadow of a presumably righteous law. They can take with them, not a body of truth which will save them from sin and error, but the will to govern themselves according to the most adequate law that their aspiration and intelligence can manufacture out of their experience.

Preparedness-A Trojan Horse THE

HE first impulse of reformers was to regard the preparedness campaign in this country as a red herring. On second thought they seem to have decided that social reform may be attached as a rider to military preparedness, and with unanswerable logic they point out that the necessities of war are driving the nations of Europe to adopt large helpings of what used to be regarded as crazy idealism. There is no answer to them when they say that successful war is impossible to-day for a nation that clings to a laissez-faire policy about property, business, labor, and social organization. Preparedness is the Trojan horse most in fashion at the moment. Reformers are not ashamed to confess that they regard the fear of war as an excellent way of improving the establishment of peace.

Nor is there anything double-faced about the idea. The underlying notion of modern radicalism has been to substitute a conscious social control for accident and confusion, to unify the nation's resources so that they can be used for a purpose. The purpose of reformers is the enhancement of human life. The purpose of war is the focussing of a maximum force. They may be contradictory purposes. But they are both purposes, and luckily for mankind a social organization which is efficient is as useful for the one as for the other. So whether our personal emphasis is on the realities of peace or the necessities of war, however much we may disagree about the objects of national policy we are forced to agree that a planless, drifting uncontrolled society is no longer fit to survive in the modern world.

When we think of America from the point of

view suggested by Mr. Graham Wallas elsewhere in this issue, its unpreparedness is desperate. Merely to mention some of the measures which war requires is to draw up a staggering indictment. A great struggle means immediate financial disorder. In England it meant, in the early days of August, 1914, the putting through of a series of measures which a few weeks earlier would have seemed the limit of audacity. The moratorium, the support of the discount market, the backing up of insurance, the breaking of monopolies in food, the prevention of hoarding, required a use of the highest kind of governmental initiative. Preparedness would mean that these measures had been planned ahead, that men knew what they were to do.

Modern war implies a concerted use of the railroad, telegraph, telephone, postal, and wireless services. Are our systems of communication capable of coördination at short notice? Is anyone preparing a plan by which the constitutional difficulties can be circumvented and a powerful national control imposed? Modern war requires the commandeering of much private property. Is anyone studying what property would have to be taken, what the terms would be, what the procedure, and what the administrative technique? Modern war requires a very flexible factory system with men adaptable enough to turn quickly from one kind of work to another. Is the government planning to make a survey of our industrial assets so that they can be mobilized effectively? Modern war is a relentless test of organization. The transition from a peace basis means temporary unemployment, mal-employment, destitution, food scarcity. The raising of armies means the creation of large numbers of dependent women and children who require pensions and relief. These needs can be handled only by a large administrative machine composed of men with expert knowledge. Our present method of foozling with unemployment, sickness, age, and infancy, would break down utterly in a war that really tested the nation.

But there is one lesson from England which overshadows all the rest. It is that no matter how well the governmental machinery is improvised, it will not work without the active coöperation of labor unions. Fought as dangers to the state, regarded as a menace to security, they have proved themselves to be organizations which the nation cannot do without. Labor unionism has shown itself to be as much a part of the structure of society as the war department or the foreign office. Labor leaders have become ex-officio members of the government, for just as the administration has to deal with clearing houses, chambers of commerce, engineering societies, so it has to deal with the natural groupings of labor. Even the most hardened Tory knows to-day that the support of workingmen can be purchased only by a recognition of their power.

It has been shown that the disrespect meted out to labor in time of peace is paid for in time of war. People who have never been admitted to a share in government, people who have been regarded as irresponsible outsiders, do not suddenly accept responsibility and become willing national servants at the sound of the trumpet. You cannot bawl people into patriotism, you cannot shout and stamp your foot and expect to produce loyalty. Patriotism is a facile emotion which seems to unify in the first moments of excitement. But the grind of war brings out the weak strains, and people who have had no share in a society, no share in power, have not the background of associations and memories which produce a high resistance and a firm purpose. A planless society cannot suddenly become purposeful, a disrupted people cannot achieve a lasting unity, a nation corrupted by bitter feuds, by rankling injustice, by thoughtless education will reveal itself hideously in time of war. Those who are complacent about the horrors of peace will have to admit this. If they have not the courage and the intelligence to deal with the problem for its own sake, they may at least be ready to deal with it for the sake of military preparedness.

T

Crime in Chicago

HE appointment of a new "Crime Commission" in Chicago while the findings of the recent aldermanic "Committee on Crime" are still, as it were, warm from the press, seems to indicate an increased public concern over a neglected subject. The report of the City Council Committee on Crime, of which Professor Charles E. Merriam was chairman, brought out clearly two different aspects of the problem: (1), in the words of the report, "that professional criminals escape the penalties of the law and prey at will upon society"; (2), that the jails and prison houses of Chicago, designed for the persons who elude or escape the police, are filled with "poor and petty criminals " or persons who are not guilty of any crime at all. The chairman of the Committee laid most stress upon Chicago's failure to apprehend and to deal with the habitual criminal, but the other aspect of the crime problem-the wrongs of the poor who suffer from unjust arrests and imprisonment-is perhaps of greater importance to society in the long run.

To abolish or amend the iniquitous system by which men are imprisoned not for their crimes but for their poverty has for many generations been the cherished hope of a host of earnest men and women seeking the ends of social justice. Sober reformers like John Howard, enthusiasts like Dickens, and

courageous women like Elizabeth Fry gave blood and tears to this cause. It is now nearly a hundred and fifty years since John Howard made the English people understand the difference between the imprisonment of " felons" who had been found guilty and sentenced, and the imprisonment in the same jails of persons who were held in prison merely because they were too poor to pay their fines and fees or to furnish the necessary bail for release pending trial. Indeed the cause is older than John Howard, for one Thomas Firmin, so long ago as 1678, in his pamphlet dealing with "Some Proposals for the Imploying of the Poor," described the work of one man who "within little more than two years with the charity of some worthy persons hath delivered out of Prison above five hundred poor people who lay there either for their fees or for very small debts." But this seventeenth century philanthropist found that he was engaged in sweeping back the tides of the sea and could only reflect that in spite of his efforts the great gaols of seventeenth century London were still very full" of poor prisoners. There could be no relief until the iniquitous system of imprisonment for poverty should be abolished.

66

[ocr errors]

So the recent report of the Chicago Crime Committee showed that to-day the jails are still very full" of poor prisoners, and that many thousands of men and boys suffer the penalties of unjust arrest and imprisonment every year. To put this concretely: The report of the Crime Committee showed that out of 109,764 persons arrested in a single year less than ten per cent were arrested on felony charges. The great mass of persons arrested90 out of every 100-were arrested for trivial offenses or for no offense at all, as evidenced by their discharge in court. That few arrests were for serious offenses is clear from the disposition of the cases in court. Only 2,182 (2 per cent) were held for the grand jury, only 141 (.001 per cent) were sentenced to the county jail, only 1,935 (1.8 per cent) were sentenced to the House of Correction, only 40 per cent of the total number were fined, and the others, more than half of all the persons arrested, were discharged in the municipal court.

Surely these are small consequences as a result of all the misery involved in nearly 110,000 arrests. No statistics are kept showing how many of these men and boys spent one or more nights in the police stations, or one or more weeks in the county jail, but the number, judging from the information at hand, must run well up to 50,000, if not beyond. And it must be emphasized that the hardships involved in needless arrests are hardships that fall almost exclusively upon the poor. The well-to-do are not arrested for trivial offenses. The system that involves the arrest of thousands of men and boys every year for offenses so slight that no judge will even fine them is a system of which the poor may be said to be the exclusive victims. In the courts they have no one to speak for them; they do not know how to speak for themselves; they are declared not guilty and discharged, but nothing is done to alter the system that makes it possible for this misery to continue.

Moreover, a study of the report shows that even the prisoners who were sentenced were in the vast majority of cases sentenced because of their poverty. Thus out of 14,709 prisoners in the House of Correction, 12,124, or 82 per cent of the whole number, were there only because they were too poor to pay the small fines imposed upon them. An examination of the House of Correction records for a period of four years showed that the number of persons imprisoned for the non-payment of fines ranged from 82 to 87 per cent of all the persons imprisoned during that time, and more than half of these persons were committed for fines of less than $20. According to the report of the Committee, these fines are "laid out" in the Bridewell at the rate of fifty cents a day, and the fines are therefore paid, in reality, in two ways: (1) by the taxpayers, for the expense of maintaining Bridewell prisoners is forty-six cents per man per day and the total cost of maintenance in a year is nearly $300,000; and (2) by the men and their families in the privation and deep humiliation that they suffer; the report notes that "this system which virtually sends men to jail because of their poverty is not only unjust but demoralizing to the individual and costly to the state."

The other great harvest of Chicago's prisoners is stored in the Cook county jail. The Committee's report showed that out of 8,593 persons who were held in this jail last year the vast majority were prisoners only because they were too poor to furnish bail pending trail; only 621 of the whole number were, when tried, found guilty and sentenced to the state reformatory or penitentiary or county jail. Seven hundred and sixty-four others were sent to the House of Correction, but the majority of these were committed, as has been said, not because of their crimes, unless poverty be a crime, but because they could not pay the small fines imposed upon them. Thus something like 90 per cent of the prisoners in the steel cages of Cook county's medieval jail are there only because they cannot furnish bail during the period that the law is taking its slow and uncertain course. The law of Illinois provides that any person awaiting trial may be released on bail "except in capital offenses where the proof is evident or the presumption great." The report of the Committee showed only 2.19 persons who were held on non-bailable offenses. The thousands of men and boys locked up every year in the

jail, then, are not imprisoned for any crime, they are not found guilty when they are tried. Only a very small percentage are given any kind of a jail sentence when they finally come to trial, and the others, about seven thousand every year, become " jail-birds" and suffer the penalty of imprisonment only because they are too poor to provide the necessary bonds.

It is important to note the data collected by the Crime Committee regarding the length of time these unfortunate men and boys were held awaiting trial. The report showed that while the majority of them were there for less than one month, 1,660 of them were kept in jail for periods varying from four weeks to sixty-three weeks. There was not sufficient evidence against some of these men even to secure an indictment by the Grand Jury, and it appears that 251 of the men against whom " no bills " were returned were held in jail for periods ranging from two to sixteen weeks, which means that a terrible punishment was inflicted upon people whose offenses did not justify their being held for trial.

In 1910, when the International Prison Congress met in Washington, the foreign delegates were taken to various cities in the country to examine their jails and prisons. Everywhere the delegates expressed horror and surprise at the spectacle of hundreds or thousands of presumably innocent persons locked up in cells merely awaiting trial. Over and over again they exclaimed, "In Europe this condition would never be tolerated." Only in the "land of freedom" could freemen be deprived of their liberty in this way.

It is to be hoped that Chicago's new Commission will concern itself not only with the escape of professional criminals but with the arrest of innocent persons and the imprisonment of men whose only crime is their poverty.

[blocks in formation]

I

For a Disciplined Patriotism

F military autocracy survives this war, the only way in which western freedom can compete

with it is by a moral mobilization under freedom equal to the moral mobilization under autocracy. It is an extraordinary disgrace that precisely in those lands where freedom in a political sense is greatest, individualistic disregard of the public consequences of conduct, and political disregard of the effects upon the individual of social and economic policies, should also be greatest.

Germany, steering by the lode-star of national integrity and national effectiveness, has made every effort to create a public-minded attitude in every subject, and to that end has seen to it that life is made tolerable for every subject, as witness her forehanded enterprises of social insurance. The Anglo-Saxon nations, on the other hand, steering toward the goal of freedom, have permitted their citizens to drift into the illusion that life belongs only to the individual, who both morally and politically ought to be left unrestrained. Only war is conceived to necessitate the subordination of private inclinations to public interests. Under the inspiration of such a popular philosophy, government has naturally concerned itself with furthering the most vociferous of individual inclinations, at least until within about a decade, rather than with systematically creating a close-knit and serviceable attitude of social coöperation to national ends.

Our patriotism has been a good deal like that diffuse and conventional type of religion which is chiefly utilized for the opening of public meetings and for facing death, but in the intervals between ceremony and crisis receives scant attention indeed. Patriotism in its cruder forms, complicated with racial and religious antipathies, is of course at bottom responsible for the present war. Without the universal hypnosis of a traditional fight-bleed-and-die patriotism there could be no world war, but the eradication of patriotism, rooting deeply as it does in human nature, is not the cure for war. The internationalism of the future can be, after all, only the patriotism of to-day, somewhat refined and operating in a higher order of magnitude. The best preparation for that time, " der Tag " of humanity, is the transformation of patriotism into an instrument suited to the work of the twentieth century.

Strangely enough, it fell to the lot of autocracy in the nineteenth century first to appropriate and fully exploit physical and social science in the service of state-building. When it seemed as if nothing could long hold back the flood-tide of democracy, the idea of state-building in accordance with the vir

gin scientific knowledge which "the wonderful century" was accumulating, and which other nations as nations were merely writing in books, formed itself more or less consciously in the mind of those officially and spiritually attached to the Prussian governmental machine. It is not really strange that where the need was most urgent from the point of view of autocracy, there the new instrumentalities of national greatness should have been appraised most nearly at their true worth. Philosophy had kindled in the German mind the splendid dream of the state, but it was science which brought the dream to realization. Thus by the applications of science and psychology and social economics, Germany has organized the total life and thought of her people as no equal body of men and women have ever been organized since time began.

The German mind was in a particularly favorable attitude during the later decades of the century for the acceptance of these new disciplines, material and spiritual. Somewhat as the immigrant at Ellis Island, his past life submerged by the consciousness of a new destiny, is ready to subject himself to a new set of political and social traditions, so Germany, stirred by her expanding national consciousness, thrilled at the prospects which presented themselves. England, on the other hand, had sunk into the mental condition seen in some of our old American families whose eyes are fixed in pleasant revery upon Colonial names and scenes. The onward German, with eyes and plans for the future like the unretrospective immigrant upon our shores, bade fair to be a supplanter, a veritable Jacob, disdaining the gratifications of a senile traditionalism joined to a petulant and childish individualism.

With his new discoveries in statecraft, his new disciplines and power, the German flings his challenge to the world: "Here is a new thing under the sun, a new thing, you old nations, you proud nations, you barbarously ill-organized nations, you looseknit puppy republics of the Occident-listen to our formula of culture, or we will prove it upon you with cannon and torpedoes." Can the free state take up this challenge? Or will autocratic power continue to excel in the effective organization of its individual units into a working whole? It seems indisputable that up to the present it has so excelled, due to the fact that it first appropriated the new physical and social instrumentalities which the nineteenth century made available for state-building, and due also to the fact that by this successful adventure in national economy and social organization, following as it did three successful wars, like

wise sources of national confidence, it created in its subjects a sense of onwardness combined with a disciplined loyalty hardly before available in history.

Is such a disciplined loyalty possible in a free state? The achievements of several of the smaller nations of Europe, notably Denmark, strongly suggest an affirmative answer. Little can be accomplished, however, unless citizens are taught, through the agency of our universal popular education, what is involved in membership in political society. We have been brought up from infancy to rejoice that government is not our master but our creature-it is of the people, by the people, and for the people; this is no doubt a worthy philosophy of government and one for which the whole world is groaning and travailing together in the present crisis. No greater calamity than the discrediting of this idea of the subordination of constituted authority to the constitutors of authority could be thought of; but the idea is liable to be discredited if the citizen of free states is satisfied to close his creed with this impressive enunciation of the subjection of governments. There is a complementary doctrine little enough professed in democratic lands, to the effect that the individual is of the state, is protected solely by the state, and ought to live in a constant and voluntary subordination of his personal inclinations to the good of the state. Citizens must cease to regard government as a sort of hired man-a good and harmless "raggedy man."

The disciplined loyalty which in future will make nations great is not primarily a function of military preparation; military preparation is rather one phase, and that a minor one, of disciplined loyalty. The problem is one of rendering available for the everyday uses of the nation that fine enthusiasm of self-devotion which the tomtom and the bugle call out in savage and civilized alike when the enemy approaches.

The security of the future will rest less upon the self-sentencing of the citizen to death by battle than upon the self-control of the citizen who is ready to do in life whatever the good of the state demands. If the public interest requires him to marry, he will marry and rear children; if it requires his sort to remain single, he will renounce life fractionally as loyally as he would renounce it upon the red battlefield. If the public interest requires him to renounce a field of investment, or to contribute hours or days of public service, or to abstain from this or that indulgence for the good of society, he will do its behests because he has been taught from a boy that only as a state is single-minded and knit together in every task and relation, only as its citizens feel more honor in furthering the public good than in satisfying their own souls, can his beloved country and all his brother citizens be happy and secure.

Of course all this sounds Utopian in time of peace, but if one had "bene with me in Utopia and had presently sene theire fasshions and lawes," by which all this follows as a matter of course, one would wish to see the effects of a trial, at least, of real education in what it means to be a citizen of a free state, in terms not of Bunker Hill and Fort Sumter, but of the twentieth century and the long years of peace which roll with such ill-appreciated significance between the lurid wars.

It is curious that the most vital of all knowledge has so long been left in the imparting to the precarious chance of oral tradition. From a practical point of view nothing can matter more than the ideas the young citizen entertains on the subjects of his own means of self-support, the begetting and rearing of children, and the manifold relations which his life sustains to the commonwealth. Yet these are precisely the fields in which the school has done little more than borrow and repeat the pious and usually obsolete platitudes of oral tradition. It may take another war to make the world democratic, but the guns of von Hindenburg and Mackensen at least will thunder into the heart of nations the lesson of the value of a deliberately wrought patriotism, scientifically ascertained and scientifically imparted, and consecrated, it is to be hoped, to a worthier object than the various nationalisms and imperialisms of the year 1914.

T

ERVILLE B. WOODS.

A Spiritual Drama:
The Life of Man

HIS gloomy and tragical story begins as fol-
lows:

On the sixth floor of a great stone house there stood in various attitudes three persons who were engaged in a rather animated conversation.

A woman was holding, with her beautiful round arms, a sheet over her breast, forgetting that the sheet could not simultaneously serve the additional purpose of concealing also her bared knees, which were slender; the woman was weeping, and in the intervals betweeen her sobs was saying:

"Oh, Ivan! I swear to you that I am not guilty It's all his He turned my head, and forced me and all that, I swear it, against my will! I struggled..."

One of the men, who had not removed his coat and hat, was gesticulating violently and saying, not without reproach, to the third person in the room:

"Scoundrel! I'll show you pretty quick how I'll croak you like a dog, and the law'll be on my side, too! You will pay for the sufferings of this poor creature, miserable tempting serpent!"

« PreviousContinue »