Слике страница
PDF
ePub

1918

hears the arguments of both prosecution and defense, is moved by neither fear nor favor, and interprets to the jury the facts and the law. These are the functions of the three types of journals which exist in time of peace; but in time of war all journals which are awake to their responsibility to the Nation must stand ready to sacrifice some of their peace-time functions, and assume, at least in part, the judicial attitude of the independent journal, if they are to justify their existence.

The United States at the present time has but one all-embracing object—we must win the war. To win the war we must abandon all partisan prejudice, all peace-time irresponsibility, and center our attention upon the direct relation between the selection, presentation, and publication of certain facts-and victory over Germany.

An editor may, in time of peace, be willing to stake everything upon the success of an individual candidate or of an individual party. In time of war there is but one candidate, Uncle Sam, and one party, the Allied Democracy.

In time of peace an editor can legitimately discuss (if he is so constructed as to be interested in such a subject) the literary quality of the Kaiser's speeches or of the perorations of Senator La Follette. In time of war neither the utterances of La Follette nor the Kaiser are of interest save as they affect the issues of victory or defeat.

In time of peace historical criticisms of American, British, or Belgian colonial policy can be published without grave danger to international amity, for in peace time there exist unlimited time and opportunity to refute falsehoods and establish facts. In time of war, however, the editor who cannot condemn the atrocities of Germany in Belgium without galloping back three centuries and dragging in by the ears Cromwell's behavior in Ireland is false not only to our allies but also to the island whose past blocks his vision of things as they are.

To say that in time of war an editor must suppress his inclination to discuss certain subjects is not to say that he must suppress essential facts or distort the truth. Loyalty to the Nation must not be blind, for blind loyalty is as sure to lead to disaster as irresponsible and unthinking criticism. In editorial offices there must be no imitation of the Chinese medical practice of covering up wounds on the outside. On the other hand, there must be no hysterical yielding to the temptation to see in every scratch on the Governmental body a mortal lesion.

Germany will not be defeated by editorials praising our Government to the skies or condemning it to the depths. Germany will be defeated by actual guns, rifles, and airships in the hands of actual sailors and soldiers in actual contact with German submarines and German troops. Constructive criticism, which will help the country to place our troops and our sailors, armed for modern warfare, in direct contact with German military forces in the shortest possible time, is the only kind of criticism which editors should permit in time of war. To refrain from attempting such criticism is not patriotism, it is to shirk grave responsibility.

The readers of America's press should judge criticism of our Government solely from the standard of the interests of the Allied nations. Let them make themselves heard in unmistakable terms whenever they find criticism of the destructive variety. In criticism of constructive order lies the safety of our Nation and our cause.

NIETZSCHE'S RELIGION

In a book recently published William Mackintire Salter1 gives a friendly interpretation of Nietzsche. From it we gather the material for the following paragraphic summary of Nietzsche's "religion."

The object of life is the creation of the "Superman"— Nietzsche's ideal of what man is to become as the product of evolution. Such individuals as Alcibiades, Cæsar, Frederick II, Leonardo da Vinci, Cæsar Borgia, Napoleon, Goethe, Bismarck, are approximations to the type. Such types of humanity have

Nietzsche the Thinker: A Study. By William Mackintire Salter. Henry

Holt & Co., New York.

66

not been sought; they have been dreaded. The contrasted type has been willed, trained, attained-the domestic animal, the social animal, the sick animal, in a word, the Christian. The Superman or group of Supermen will have world control, the sooner the better. We must cease endeavoring to preserve the sick and the feeble. Our duty to them is "to help them pass away.... They may come to choose their own passing away, dying then in perhaps greater dignity than they have ever lived, and almost winning the right to life again." As with individuals, so with races. Races that cannot be utilized in some way may be allowed to die out." Perils, disasters, wars, are all desirable, both because they develop the noble qualities in the strong, and because they destroy the weak. It is no small advantage to have a hundred Damocles-swords over one-thereby one learns to dance, comes to freedom of motion." There will come a great war, the war for an idea, for the rule and organization of the earth; and in this war Nietzsche's higher men will lead. Morality furnishes no objection, for "there is nothing obligatory about morality. The only moral authority is general or social." It is furnished by the custom of the social group and varies with the various groups. Real standard for all there is none, and Nietzsche does not hesitate to call his followers “immoralists." "Morality, being that which produces good for the group, is not a good over it. The group owes no service to anything beyond itself; nor as creator of good and evil is it subject to its own creation. . . . The members of one group may deceive, rob, kill, those of another group without the slightest self-reproach. In a famous passage (infamous, some would say) Nietzsche describes a highly moralized race, its members self-restrained in their dealings with one another, and showing all manner of mutual considerateness, delicacy of feeling, loyalty, and friendship, falling on a stranger race, murdering, burning, ravishing. torturing, and with no graver feelings than those of students on a lark." As to God, the Superman will replace God. " The task of the race is to create these Lords or Gods-if create a God, Zarathustra says, stop talking of one. There are two conclusive objections to Nietzsche's religion: the scientific and the practical.

you cannot

The Scientific. Development depends on struggle for others no less than on struggle for self. If the weak were left to die, the Supermen could never develop, for the struggle by the strong for the weak is necessary to develop the strength of the strong. The effort of Germany to destroy France is destroying Germany-the Germany of Kant and Hegel, of Goethe and Schiller, of Luther and Froebel. The struggle of England to save Belgium is saving England-the England of Cromwell and Hampden, of Wordsworth and Browning, of Martineau and the Arnolds. If Nietzsche's parents had acted on the philosophy of Nietzsche, their son would never have survived his infancy, for infants survive only because they are cared for by their stronger parents. Even Romulus lived because he was suckled, not devoured, by the wolf.

The Practical. The test of philosophy is, does it work? How Nietzsche's philosophy of egotism works this war is exhibiting to the world. Teach a naturally truthful, ingenuous, kindly people that man has not inherited a moral nature from the Father who begot them, that the law of life is the selfish will of the strong, and the inevitable result is Belgium, Serbia, and Armenia. Compare the description which Nietzsche gave to his own disciples of the possible effect of his philosophy on the group which should adopt it with the historical account by eye-witnesses of the effect which that philosophy has had on the citizens of Berlin, as reported in the January "Atlantic Monthly:" "In the almost tigerish rage which followed the Belgian opposition, the Germans became a people characterized by cruelty almost maniacal in its ferocity. Centuries were bridged, and the savageries of the early days of the Christian era came trooping over the span. Thumbs were turned down and kept down. A deaf ear was turned to the cries of distress which followed the accumulated wretchedness that the decision entailed. What psychology can analyze the mentality of a peaceful, law-abiding people suddenly imbued with a lust for blood?"

The war of the Huns against civilization is correctly charac terized by the words of an unnamed American professor quoted and condemned by Mr. Salter: "Nietzsche in action."

GETTING THINGS DONE AND LEAVING THINGS UNDONE HOW THE NAVY ORDERS ITS GUNS-CONTRAST WITH ARMY DELAY_ FURTHER FACTS BROUGHT OUT IN THE SENATE INVESTIGATION_ SECRETARY BAKER'S TESTIMONY

C

AMPING in the woods and handling a Government job really have much in common. The bad camper never sees anything but the difficulties along the trail. He always wants to make camp long before his destination is reached. The road he travels is always the roughest, the mountains he crosses always the highest, and the water he falls in always the wettest that has ever vexed the soul of man.

In exactly the same way the Government official who does not measure up to his task finds the difficulties before him occupying a larger place in his field of vision than the goal which it is his duty to reach. Frequently his excuses for failure are irrefutable, but nevertheless things within his charge do not get themselves done.

Both the Army and the Navy, at the outbreak of the war, had to secure for their forces machine guns. It is true that the Army had immeasurably the larger task, but this does not affect the fact that the Navy approached the problem in a very different spirit from that manifested by the War Department. In his last annual report the Chief of Ordnance of the Navy

says:

This bureau was awaiting with interest the results to be obtained by the Army Machine Gun Board, that was to meet in May to determine the most suitable type of machine gun, but the approach of war made it imperative to obtain additional machine guns without waiting for the results of the May tests.

Tests were held at the marine rifle range. . . during April and the early part of May, and urgent orders were placed for the three types of machine guns that were readily procurable. Considerable numbers of these guns have already been delivered, and larger quantities will be delivered in the near future. This is the manner in which the Navy approached its problem. The way the Army approached its problem is told as follows in the language of the Chief of Ordnance in his last annual report:

The Board referred to in my last report continued tests of various types of machine guns ... beginning in May last, and has submitted a report. A number of guns were declared to be efficient for service, and procurement of these various types has, due to the existence of a state of war, been to a large degree a question of ability to secure delivery. In other words, the number of machine guns on hand when war was declared was so small that it was necessary to keep going at the greatest possible factories which were already in opercapacity those machine gun ation, and to utilize their output when the guns so manufactured had been reported by the Board as efficient even though they may not have been reported as most efficient.

These two statements afford a fair basis of comparison by which to judge the merits of the Ordnance Departments of the Navy and of the Army. On the one hand, a manifest desire exists to make the best use possible of the means at hand; on the other, a reluctance to abandon the ordinary routine in the face of an overwhelming emergency and an inclination to see in every molehill at least an incipient mountain.

The general public has had its attention centered upon the Army rather than the Navy, for the reason that the Congressional investigations into the conduct of the war which have been discussing Army affairs have been largely conducted through public hearings. The Committee of the House which has been investigating the management of the Navy, on the contrary, has held its hearings in executive session. Although the public has been given no record of these hearings, Representative Oliver, chairman of the Investigating Committee, has issued a statement to the press which covers the findings of the Committee on all subjects which it was deemed proper to make public at this time. Concerning the Ordnance Bureau of the Navy, Representative Oliver says:

The Bureau, so far as could be learned, has fully satisfied the demands made upon it by the vessels operating in European waters. A letter from Vice-Admiral Sims compliments the work

and spirit of the Ordnance Department. . . . As a preliminary to its hearings, the Committee visited the offices of the Bureau of Ordnance, and personally examined into the organization and operation of the Bureau's administrative detail. The Bureau was most favorably impressed. . . .

The organization of the Bureau in time of peace had been developed so as to make it an organization for war, with the result that, notwithstanding the enormously increased demands and the responsibilities recently placed upon it, that organization is working smoothly and efficiently.

Representative Oliver states that the expenditures by the Bureau have been increased from $3,000,000 to more than $560,000,000, and that in the process of spending this sum the Bureau has placed contracts rapidly, developed new sources of supply, and at present is in a position to satisfy the needs of the Navy with the facilities now under its control. ammunition, and all their auxiliaries since the fitting out of the Besides equipping more than a thousand vessels with guns, first ship to defend itself on March 14, and taking care of the ordnance demands of the Regular Navy, the Bureau has acquired reserves of ammunition and ordnance. While the Army has had to depend on France and England for its field artillery and machine guns, the Navy has reversed this humiliating process.

Instead of depending upon the resources of our hard-pressed allies, the Navy Department has furnished in an appreciable quantity the Governments of England, France, and Italy with guns from the largest to the smallest caliber, together with proper supplies of ammunition therefor. Representative Oliver reports that every "company of marines leaving for foreign service has been provided with its proper quota of machine guns, the second detachment being entirely outfitted with the newest infantry machine gun, and recent reports from the war zone indicate that this gun is giving entire satisfaction."

Almost as sweeping praise as that given the Navy Department by Representative Oliver has been bestowed by the Secre tary of War, Mr. Baker, upon the conduct of his own Department since the outbreak of the war.

Before the Senate Military Affairs Committee Secretary Baker read a statement summarizing the achievements of the War Department. He stated that the War Department had raised an army 66 so large that further increments to it can be adequately equipped and trained as rapidly as those already in training can be transported." He said that this "army has been enlisted without serious dislocation of the industries of the country." He declared that "arms of the most modern and effective kind-including artillery, machine guns, automatic rifles, and small arms-have been provided by manufacture or purchase for every soldier in France and are available for every soldier who can be gotten to France in the year 1918." He stated that "a substantial army is already in France, where both men and officers have been additionally and specially trained and are ready for active service."

Secretary Baker declared that "no army of similar size in the history of the world has ever been raised, equipped, or trained so quickly.' trained so quickly." His attitude towards the achievement of the War Department is well summed up in the following phrases:

The American people are entitled to know of the splendid effectiveness with which they have been able to organize the man power and the material power of the Nation in a great cause, and also because our army in France under General Pershing and our allies are entitled to have the benefit resulting from the depres sion of the morale of their enemies which must come when the Germans realize that the American democracy has neither blundered nor hesitated, but has actually brought the full power of its men and resources into completely organized strength against their military machine.

Such a statement as this does not inspire confidence; it merely depresses. The statement of Representative Oliver which

we have quoted does inspire confidence because it is in accord with the known facts. The known facts concerning the situation in the War Department do not agree with Secretary Baker's pronunciamento except in certain obvious

instances.

Does Secretary Baker consider that borrowing from our hard-pressed allies all the artillery for our expeditionary force is a particularly encouraging way of providing an American fighting force for our allies? If this was deliberately decided upon as a desirable policy by conference with our allies, should not the Secretary have told the country so?

Does Secretary Baker's use of the word "substantial" in his discussion of our expeditionary army accord with the general use of that word as it should be applied in a war in which armies are judged, not by their thousands, but by their millions?

Secretary Baker says that the Germans will be depressed when they learn that the American democracy has actually organized strength against their military machine. Indeed they brought the full power of its men and resources into completely will, but so far we doubt whether depression based on contact with our "completely organized strength" is sufficient to jus tify the sanguine words of Secretary Baker. We have been at war nine months, and fewer German soldiers have fallen before the rifles of our men than fell before the rifles of unprepared England in the first skirmishes of the great war.

In Secretary Baker's cross-examination it was made evident. that many members of his examining committee were as unconvinced by Secretary Baker's sweeping eulogies of his work as those who have examined these eulogies on the printed page. Senator Chamberlain, of Oregon, a Democrat, and perhaps the clearest thinker in the Senate on the military needs of the country, was a notable example. A tilt between Senator Chamberlain and Secretary Baker developed the fact that the Secretary defended the change of arms from the Springfield to the modified Enfield as a measure of efficiency. The war was not on us," said Secretary Baker; "the war was in Europe." In referring to this statement Senator Weeks, of Massachusetts, said:

66

The very condition now in the Ordnance Department is explained by what you have said. The fact that the war was not on us directly did not absolve us from any obligation to use the greatest haste possible in getting the armed men to the front, and the criticism has been made against the Ordnance Department, and it seems to me to have some reason behind it, that there has been too great a desire for technicality and too little "pep" in advancing the necessities of the Army from that bureau.

Later in the progress of the investigation, Senator New, of Indiana, in referring to the warning of the resumption of submarine warfare sent to our Government by Ambassador Gerard, said: "Don't you think that would have been a pretty good time to have settled all technicalities as to the adoption of a rifle?" To this plain question Secretary Baker evasively an

swered, "Why, ten years ago would have been a good time. All these questions ought to be settled as soon as they can be settled.

Apparently Seeretary Baker is reasonably well satisfied with the present situation, not only in regard to rifles, but also in regard to ordnance. When Senator Weeks asked him, "What can be done to improve the situation as it exists now, to-day?" the Secretary of War replied:

Well, Senator, I cannot at this moment put my mind on a thing in the Ordnance Department which I can suggest would be helped or improved by your activity, and only for the reason that the minute I find out anything that can be helped or improved I help or improve it, so I am up to date with my own suggestions.

At a subsequent session Secretary Baker evidently concluded to modify this ungracious attitude and said, "I welcome the co-operation of the Committee."

ditions and achievement did not fairly represent the existing That the general tenor of Secretary Baker's summary of confacts was apparently the opinion of more than one of the Senators who have followed day after day the detailed testimony of officers and bureau chiefs concerning the shortages in uniforms, machine guns, artillery, blankets, and supplies in the various cantonments throughout the country.

Senator Wadsworth, of New York, summarized this opinion in the following words in his comment upon the Secretary's general statement:

The thing that occurred to me in reading the statement through very carefully was that it gives the impression, I think, generally, that the situation is a rosy one; that there is nothing to fear; that the rush needs, as the Secretary uses that expression, have been complied with, and that no greater haste is necessary; that everything is fine. I cannot agree with him. I think we have ahead of us a bigger task in the next eight months than we have had in the last eight months. . I think we have got most of our work ahead of us and that the expression "the initial rush needs have been supplied" is not an accurate description of the situation. . . This is a fight.

...

[ocr errors]

In the last four words of this quotation from Senator Wadsworth are summed up all the reasons why the country should be less satisfied than Mr. Baker with the achievements of the War Department. "This is a fight," and fights cannot be won by secretaries or bureau chiefs who believe their departments beyond the need of criticism, or who consider a war three thousand miles away as less immediate than one at the gates of the city where they dwell. The surest way to bring the war to our gates is to regard it as a contest remote from our daily lives.

It may be proper to add that the foregoing summary of and comment upon Secretary Baker's examination by the Senatorial Committee is based upon a complete stenographic report which we have obtained from Washington.

GERMAN-RUSSIAN PEACE

BY SAMUEL COLCORD

Two days before Congress declared war against Germany, an issue of The Outlook was published bearing on its cover and in three separate places the title "Join the Allies." One of the articles under that heading was an editorial. Another was a contributed article by Mr. Colcord. The article which here follows, and which is also by him, is, we believe, of equal timeliness and importance with that which we published on the eve of America's entrance into the World War.-THE EDITORS.

G

ERMANY'S lustful eyes are fixed upon the markets of Russia, with her population of one hundred and eighty Jmillions, a land area of more than one-seventh of the globe, and enormous undeveloped industrial resources.

That is game for the Prussian Werwolf worth more than a hundred Alsace-Lorraines or a hundred African colonies. Germany now guards from the outside the best gateways to this market, preventing other entry and seeking by specious promises to get past the weak Bolshevik guards on the inside. If once she gets in and tightens her grip on the Russian markets, she will never relax her hold. Russia will have been forever lost to the Allies and will become a vassal of Germany.

This is a subject of vast and immediate importance, for if Germany achieves that near-impending conquest which, with German-directed development, will give to her nearly all that the English blockade and the American embargo withhold in the way of food for her army, and, what just now is of much more importance, of materials for the making of her implements and munitions of war, it will put the issue of the war in much graver doubt and may end it in German triumph.

Or, if not that, there is grave danger that it will give her in any possible peace terms such control of Russia that in the next war, for which she is already making her plans, she will be able to take the field with, not merely the Mittel-Europa

which is being so largely discussed upon her side, but with also eastern Europe and the Slav nations of the north, which would enable her to put a fighting force of from thirty to forty millions in a new war to insure her conquest of the world.

This, unhappily, is no idle dream, but may become stupendous and appalling reality if America and her allies do not at once awake to the peril and take immediate and gigantic steps to avert it.

The present disagreements may be only a camouflage to deceive both the Russian and the German people, through which may yet appear evacuation and trade agreement much in favor of Germany and quite contrary to Russian interests.

The same Potsdam gang did that once to Russia in a treaty forced by the foxy Kaiser on the weak Czar by a mixture of Prussian threat and vague promise when Russia was at war with Japan. That treaty is little known and less understood in America. But many a Russian merchant remembers it with bitter reflections of lost trade in his own country, forced by Russian trade laws against her own merchants and in favor of the Teuton. The interrupted peace pourparlers may be renewed with some such end in view, which may come to the surface, but more likely will be concealed until the last moment, when, in so far as the Bolsheviki have the power to commit Russia, the thing will be done. If done, it ought to be undone when the Allies enforce their terms.

All the Bolshevik leaders may not be the German hirelings we have been led to believe them to be, but some of them merely visionary though coarse and rough idealists, who may yet be rudely awakened to the discovery of German duplicity and the peril in giving to the Huns any advantage. It would be well for the Allies, without duplicity, but in all sincerity, to cultivate their friendship in a guarded way and win their confidence in order to be able to make quick and effective use of any such development.

And what of Russian freedom if Germany succeeds in making that economic pact and withdraws her armies from the land of the Muscovite? It will be hailed in Russia and among certain classes in all nations as a great triumph of Bolshevik diplomacy; received in Austria-Hungary with much satisfaction; in Germany applauded by the Liberals, spurned by the Pan-Germans, and accepted loyally by the people at large on official assurances.

But, however it may be received in Russia or elsewhere, I can see no reason to revise what I wrote in April or May. If Russia makes her separate peace, it will hold good only until Germany can make her peace with England and France, by which she will be free to deal with Russia alone. Then in her own time, upon any pretext that pleases her, she will treat her agreement with Russia as a scrap of paper, and attack her with the combined forces of the Central Powers. She will then restore and support in power a subservient monarchy, for she

[blocks in formation]

We should treat Russia with forbearance. It is not for her good nor for ours, nor for afflicted mankind, that we alienate her. Let America clasp hands with the new, free, but much bewil dered Russia, and, in sincere and hearty sympathy with all her true ideals of liberty and humanity and compassion for her weakness and her sins, lead her to light and safety, and thereby save the world.

Whatever is attempted needs to be done on a large scale, and cannot be done cheaply if Germany's work is to be effectively met. Billions would be a small price for Germany to pay if thereby she may achieve her ends. We and our allies ought not to balk an hour at many millions to be put at once to use under the most competent head obtainable.

Thousands of capable and trustworthy Russians could be wisely employed. Lectures and other public addresses, a liberal use of the movies, and a wide circulation of literature through the public press and otherwise could be included in the plan, while much could be accomplished by the personal contact of the right men with Bolshevik leaders of thought and action, not only in the large centers, but also in many of the smaller communities. The wise democratic utterances of Lloyd George and President Wilson will go far in this direction. But alone they will not withstand the Hun propaganda of misrepresenta

tion.

The sincerity and openness of the propaganda should be in marked contrast with German methods. Its motto might be, Millions for open light, but not one cent for dark intrigue.

Postscript. The President's epoch-making address to Congress, coming less than two days after the above article was handed in to The Outlook's office, and dealing with this same Russian Bolshevik movement for peace appreciatively and yet frankly in a way that is altogether admirable, affords the best possible material for use in the suggested propaganda. The President says: "There is, moreover, a voice calling for these definitions of principle and of purpose which is, it seems to me, more thrilling and more compelling than any of the many mov ing voices with which the troubled air of the world is filled. It is the voice of the Russian people. . . . Their conception of what is right, of what is humane and honorable for them to accept, has been stated with a frankness, a largeness of view, a generosity of spirit, and a universal human sympathy which must challenge the admiration of every friend of man kind."

TWO LETTERS THAT EXPLAIN THEMSELVES

FROM OTTO CLAUDE KINNICK TO THE
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE OUTLOOK

Dr. Lyman Abbott:

D

December 27, 1917. EAR SIR-The letter of the President of The Outlook Company on the back cover of The Outlook of this week is interesting and refreshing. He invites personal replies. The matters I have on my mind, however, pertain more to the office of the Editor-in-Chief, I believe.

For two academic years I have used The Outlook as a basis for the study of elementary composition in English. During this period, and many times previous, I have testified that the greatest single factor in my training in the use of English has been The Outlook, which I have read for more than fifteen years. (I have attended several of the leading institutions of higher learning in the Middle West and am a graduate of three.) Your insistence upon getting the facts and your clearness of statement have been admirable characteristics.

You seem to have a goodly share of compliments, as things

human go, and you have, I judge, your share of detractors. am not writing that I may see extracts of this in print. I should be glad, nevertheless, to have you clear up by way of an edito rial some of the perplexity I am now under, for the mystery of the evolution of your thinking upon some major questions of the last quarter of a century is disturbing.

The issue of this week makes the question-mark loom large. You have news paragraphs and editorials on two important questions, namely, railway management and prohibition. In so far as you express yourself editorially I am in hearty accord. You have not always been of this opinion. Let me refer to another question, that of suffrage without regard to sex. You have made rapid strides on this question, and you are coming to a position which I have occupied for over twenty years. Even within my memory on down to within very recent years you spoken slightingly and in a sarcastic manner of the pioneers in these reforms. I do not know what you would say in defense, but I believe this would reflect your spirit that such questions have not been National issues before: that the times have not

have

[ocr errors]

been ripe for such reforms. (Will you pardon me for being naïve and candid? A thinking person must find some basis for explaining these things.) Let us see as to the railways. Forty years ago and subsequently the Greenbackers and the Populists advocated Government ownership and operation of railways. If ownership would not be entertained hospitably by the people, they asked for Government operation. The need of this was as apparent then as it is to you now. If you did not see it then, why did you not open your eyes? How can you write the editorial of December 26 without blushing at the position you once held? I feel you wronged some good and wise men of the past, some of whom remain to witness your change of heart and rejoice in it. Does your editorial conscience permit you to let pass unrecalled this your former scorn? You may say about this, as some of the citizens say about universal_military training (whom you crit icise in this same issue), Let bygones be bygones. May I rejoin, as you do-bygones are not bygones? Even when these reforms are effected, bygones will not be bygones. The spirit which actuates you will be your heritage, clogging your progress in any public reform, and will be the heritage of tens of thousands of your readers who feel that because The Outlook says thus and so they may say thus and so also. This does not make for progress; and this conservatism of yours is costly and delaying. Let me see if I interpret the character of The Outlook. You are not willing to be in the forefront of reforms; you shrink from the lonesomeness of the pioneer. Neither are you willing to lag behind or stay out altogether when any movement is about to ripen which will make for the welfare of the great mass of the people. I wince, Dr. Abbott, in addressing words of this import to a man so gracious and so kindly disposed. But I am not addressing them to you personally; I am appealing to the Editor-in-Chief of The Outlook. Your responsibility in the editorial policy is more than personal. It would seem superfluous to remind you of this.

Bygones are never bygones. Several years ago I wrote in protest of your advertisement of a certain famous brand of English cigarette. Many others also protested. The Outlook replied that, in view of such protest, it had decided to discontinue such advertisement. Yet in a few weeks subsequent you displayed on the back cover, "Bull Durham-Roll your own." It seems to me that the advertising manager broke faith with me. I did not stop the paper; I could not help you improve that way. Will you kindly refrain from ridiculing me on this matter? The day will come when The Outlook will view narcoties as you now do alcoholics, namely, that the indulgence in them is wasteful and senseless.

Other questions will come up which will be quite as vexing as any we have yet confronted. What will be your attitude upon them? More important still, what will be your attitude towards those who have the clear-seeing and the courage first to espouse those causes? Sincerely yours, Eureka College, Eureka, Illinois.

OTTO CLAUDE KINNICK.

FROM THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE OUTLOOK TO OTTO CLAUDE KINNICK

Dear Sir:

Your letter of December 27 is an interesting challenge -and a fair one.

For your own personal information I might say that within our own editorial staff there has been difference of opinion concerning prohibition and woman suffrage, though the difference of opinion does not, I think, go deeper than questions relating to method. The members of the editorial staff gather each week in editorial conference, and some of the arguments that go on in that conference are as vigorous as any arguments which such critical and discriminating readers as you ever present to us. What The Outlook says is the joint product of the minds of its staff. I think it may be said that on all general principles the members of the staff are in thorough and hearty accord; but there is a very wide divergence of opinion from time to time as to the application of those principles to particular questions and particular events. As a consequence The Outlook grows. Though its convictions on fundamental principles remain the same, its opinions do develop. Personally, I am very glad that

this is the fact. It keeps The Outlook alive and it keeps it open-minded. I myself am not of the same opinion on some questions that I was five years ago, because I have been listening to the arguments of my colleagues in the editorial conference. And what I think is true of my own mind I think is true also of the minds of others on our staff. It may therefore be said that The Outlook does not hold a position, but rather travels a road. And I think you will find that the country at large has also been traveling a road. In general, moreover, I am inclined to think, from looking over the files of The Outlook and from comparisons I have made on several occasions, and also from testimony which we have received from others, that, on the whole, The Outlook has been ahead of public opinion, and has perhaps had something to do with affecting public opinion, for precisely the reason that its own opinions have been developed as public opinion has developed.

It would make this letter entirely too long for me to take up the three questions of railway management, prohibition, and woman suffrage, and show how what I have said applies to them severally. I may, however, say briefly and inadequately that in each case it is, I think, not quite so much The Outlook that has changed as the circumstances affecting these different problems. For example, we have never opposed public ownership and operation of the railways. On the contrary, we have urged and advocated in many instances the principle of public ownership and operation of public utilities. What we have held is that whether a public utility should be publicly owned or pub licly operated or not should be determined, not by any doctrinaire theory, but solely by determining whether under the particular circumstances of the particular case public ownership or public operation would be of greater or less public service. We have always maintained the right of Government ownership and Government operation. The sole question has been whether in any instance that right should be exercised or waived. In our opinion, such public operation as we now have of the Nation's railway systems by the National Government has become a necessity; but in 1913 it was not a necessity. It was then a right, but a right which we believed it was best for the Government not to exercise until the Government had made further trial of the principle of regulation. The war, however, has made a great change. Government regulation as carried on before the war has proved totally inadequate to war conditions. We there fore hold, entirely consistently with our past belief, that it is time for the Government to exercise that right which it had formerly found it inadvisable to exercise. We still are of the opinion that at the time when the People's party advocated public ownership and operation of the railways it would have been injurious, if not disastrous, for the Government to undertake railway ownership and operation. One of the great dangers of Government ownership and operation has been the creation of a vast body of civil service employees, which would have been almost certainly at an earlier era in American history subject to political manipulation. The whole spirit of the coun try has been changed by the war, and public opinion, which once would have tolerated such opportunity for political corrup tion, would not tolerate the use of that opportunity for political corruption at present.

May I say, however, that we have not consciously been scornful of those who have taken another view? In speaking, therefore, of our former scorn, I think you have misunderstood our position entirely. If there has been any expression of scorn we are heartily sorry for it; but we first should like to be confronted with the evidence that we were ever in that state of mind.

As to the lonesomeness of the pioneer, which you say The Outlook avoids, all I can say is that we have had the mental experience of it even if you think we were not entitled to that experience. A great many of our readers have at one time or another been so thoroughly convinced that we were so far in the forefront of reforms that they declined to follow us even to the point of remaining subscribers. Whether The Outlook has been a pioneer or not, it has repeatedly paid the penalty of a pioneer, for it has been regarded by a large number of people as too venturesome to suit their tastes. I am Very sincerely yours, LYMAN ABBOTT.

The Outlook Office, New York City.

« ПретходнаНастави »