« 上一頁繼續 »
feeling that their generals have blundered, that heroism is useless against overwhelming odds. Perhaps to-night, as they sit about their camp-fires, they are telling the stories of their fathers of the dib&ch of 1870—psychologically ripe for panic and rout.
If I could find the Magic Carpet to-night, I would not go eavesdropping to the palaces of kings, nor to the council rooms of ministers, nor even to the tents of the generals. I would whisk myself over to the trenches and listen to the stories Piou Piou is telling to Tommy Atkins, and find out whether the Germans are singing their songs true—or flatting. That, I think, would be the most important information we could have tonight.
For unless one side or the other is badly defeated—utterly routed—I do not see that the impending engagement will get us very far.
Even if the Allies are forced to give up this line, so long as they can do it in good order, the Germans are almost as far from winning as ever. They cannot seriously invest Paris with three armies in the field against them. In 1870 they had crushed MacMahon at Sedan, bottled up Bazaine in Metz, and driven Bourbaki into Switzerland, before they struck at Paris. With these armies defeated, France had no organized reserves to threaten communications. And then the Germans were not pressed for time. They were not worrying about their eastern frontier.
And if the fortunes of war suddenly change and the Germans are defeated—unless they have a panic—the Allies, after their repeated reverses, can hardly have the strength to follow up the victory.
THE CAMPAIGN IN THE EAST
The conflict between Russia and Germany seems to be largely one between "official" statements. We have categorical assurances of imposing Russian victories and just as emphatic announcements of appalling Russian defeats. From Petrograd—as the Czar has rechristened his capital—we hear that the Russian armies are attacking the forts of the Vistula. Berlin despatches say that 70,000 Russians have surrendered at Allenstein, quite fifty miles farther east. One or both of these announcements are false.
But, even assuming that the Russian claims are true, all talk of an entry into Berlin is premature. The Vistula is the first defense
wall of Germany. If its forts are carried, there is nearly two hundred miles to traverse before the River Oder is reached, and that is even more strongly fortified. The Russian army is not so well equipped nor is its commissary as efficient as the German. The Russian advance, even if unresisted, will be slow. I doubt if it can become formidable .enough to influence the campaign in France for several weeks.
I hazard the guess that the troop trains reported from Belgium to be going east, carrying reinforcements for East Prussia, are in reality hospital trains carrying home the sick and wounded from the front.
It is inconceivable that the Germans should withdraw troops which might be used in the west. German imperialism is gambling its very existence on this war. The overrunning of a few hundred square miles of the eastern marches is a small matter. I believe Berlin would be sacrificed before the Kaiser would risk weakening his attack on France. The enemy in the west must be crushed before serious attention can be given to Russia.
On the other hand, let us assume for a minute that the German despatches are true, that the Russians have been seriousJy__ defeated at Allenstein. Unless England and France are smashed to the point where they cannot furnish money to the Czar, he can go on equipping soldiers and pouring them over the frontier almost indefinitely. Those who are reported to have been lost are a mere drop in the bucket. If the Allies can maintain themselves in the west, sooner or later the weight of Russian numbers must be a deciding factor.
THE AUSTRORUSSIAN CAMPAIGN
Early in the war the Austrians invaded Russian Poland, and despatches from Vienna and St. Petersburg both claimed victories in the neighborhood of Lublin.
Simultaneously the Southern Russian Army crossed the frontier into the Austrian province of Galicia. And here the forces of the Czar seem to have had tangible successes. The latest news as we go to press is an admission from Vienna that the Russians have taken Lemberg. This seems to confirm the roundabout rumors which have been coming from Rome and Bucharest of a great Austrian defeat.
The number of men involved in this campaign is probably as great as in northern France. This is the point of least resistance for a Russian attack, and it seems that the Czar is exerting the greatest pressure here. And a decisive Russian victory in Galicia is likely to be the death-blow for the Hapsburg dynasty.
THE MONTH AT SEA
News of a naval engagement has at last, reached us; but, judged by the standard of land operation in this stupendous war, it hardly deserves to be called a " battle."
Apparently a half-dozen German light cruisers, escorted by destroyers, attempted a dash from Heligoland with the intention of running the English blockade and harrying commerce. The attempt failed, and four or five of the German ships were sunk. The English losses were light. No modern battleships of the dreadnought type were involved.
While there has been no great naval fight, the fleets of the Allies have accomplished what they were intended for. They have kept the seas open for English and French and neutral ships. For a country like England, which is dependent on the sea for food supplies and for bringing up reinforcements, this is indeed an important service.
It is also a deadly blow to German economic life. The French and English steamship lines—except as they have been crippled by the requisition of their best ships for military purposes—are operating almost at normal.
Many of the French and English factories can be kept open, while unemployment in Germany must have reached tragic proportions.
During this fourth week of the war the German army added luster to its traditions of victory. But in the Franco-Prussian War, which established the German Empire, and on which all German military traditions are based, the Germans observed the rules of the Kricgspiele. No amount of victory will remove the tarnish which the massacre at Louvain has brought to their arms.
Both France and Germany refused at the Hague Conference to subscribe to the prohibition against dropping bombs in fortified cities, which was proposed by England, who had not at that time begun building flyingmachines. So, no matter how many women and children were blown to pieces, nor how
many diplomats were disturbed, I believe that the air-ship attacks on Antwerp and Paris were technically " correct."
But for the wholesale executions of noncombatants and the wanton burning of a large part of the defenseless town of Louvain there is not even a technical excuse. Even if we accept the German account, the affair was unpardonably barbarous.
No doubt the great mass of the German people are just as horrified as we at this act of vandalism. But if their official representatives continue such practices, it will be continually harder for any civilized being to maintain neutrality.
ENGLAND AND THE WAR
In a way, Great Britain is less closely involved in this war than the Continental countries. Only the very rich can afford to have their sons become army officers. And, as with us, only the poor enlist as privates. The big middle class and the more fortunate workers do not have relatives at the front. Universal conscription on the Continent means that almost every family has a son or father on the firing line.
But that the English are stirred by this war as never before is shown by the calling in of the native troops from India. The attitude of the Englishmen who have served in the colonies towards this move is well illustrated by Kipling's South African story "A White Man's War." Dark as things looked for the Empire at the beginning of the Boer War, the English decided not to risk letting the "natives" get the habit of killing white men. After all, there is no great difference in appearance between Germans and English. If the Sikhs and Ghurkas are brought into this campaign, there is danger that they may not recognize this difference. If they get it into their heads that they are good enough to kill white men, they may some time take a shot at their English masters. The decision to bring them to Europe will be regarded by all " colonials," active or retired, as a counsel of desperation.
But the news will be received with greater regret by all those good people in England who have been supporting foreign missions. The lessons in applied Christianity which these heathen will get on the Continent will hardly help the cause of Christ—the Prince of Peace—in India.
THE CENTRAL WEST
With the war monopolizing the front pages <i the newspapers and a good deal of inside space as well, politics has been relegated to the background. Nevertheless, during the past month in a number of States there have been p litical events of too much importance t > be overlooked by those voters who do not LKend to let even such a great counter-attraction as a European war hinder the proper performance of their duty at the polls next November.
In Wisconsin the event of greatest political bterest has been the double defeat of the La Follette forces at the State primaries by the Republicans and the Roosevelt Progressives. In the first place, the La Follette men l«t the gubernatorial nomination to Emanuel I- Philipp, the candidate of the old-line Republican conservatives. The La Follette jroup was further disappointed by the victory of Governor McGovern over LieutenantGovernor Thomas Morris in the contest for the Senatorial nomination. Mr. Morris was Senator La Follette's choice, and Mr. McGovern is the man who took the Wisconsin delegation from La Follette at the last Republican Presidential Convention and gave it '• Mr. Roosevelt. The Wisconsin Democrats chose as their candidate for Governor tihn A. Aylvvard, supposed to have the favor r'f President Wilson. His rival was John C. 1 jrel. who was an unsuccessful candidate in 1912 also.
In Kansas both Republicans and Democrats have included a woman suffrage plank in tneir platforms, and the Democrats, after a titter fight, have come out for National prohibition. In Michigan the three large parties have already picked their candidates for the Governorship, the Republicans having chosen "-Governor Charles S. Osborn, the Democrats Woodbridge N. Ferris, the present ('•nernor, while the Progressive candidate is Henry R. Pattengill.
The contest for the Republican nominaUin for United States Senator from Ohio *as somewhat spectacular and very close, farmer Lieutenant-Governor W. G. Harding »wning over Joseph 13. Foraker by a narrow margin. All three parties have named their rn:rie in the gubernatorial race, the Repub'*in choice being George Willis, the Demo
cratic selection J. M. Cox, while the Progressives have nominated James A. Garfield, former Secretary of the Interior. It is expected that the fight will be a hot one and that the prohibition issue may decide it. Willis is expected to declare for State-wide prohibition, but Cox, who has fathered certain measures of restriction, such as the one to limit the number of saloon licenses issued, may catch a share of the prohibition vote for himself.
The situation in New York is tangled. AH hope of fusion between Progressives and Independent Republicans seems to have vanished. The Progressives have named a ticket with ex-State Senator Frederick M. Davenport running for Governor, and Bainbridge Colby for United States Senator. The Republicans and Democrats made no nominations, but confined themselves to adopting platforms and naming fifteen candidates for delegates-at-large to the Constitutional Convention next year. The Demo cratic Conference, however, indorsed the administration of Governor Glynn, and he seems likely to be the machine candidate. United States Ambassador to Germany James W. Gerard is apparently developing strength as an aspirant for the Senatorial nomination.
The injection of the anti-Murphy element of Independent Democrats into the situation is likely to make things interesting, as these dissatisfied ones have put a strong ticket in the field, with John A. Hennessy running for Governor, and Assistant Secretary of th2 Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt up for Senator. Political observers are anxiously waiting to see whether Governor Glynn will choose to reply to the verbal broadsides which Mr. Hennessy is expected to discharge at him, or remain silent.
The Republican nominee for Governor in New York, according to present indications, will be chosen from among three men—Job E. Hedges, who had the nomination in 1912; ex-State Senator Harvey D. Hinman, who coquetted with the Progressives for a while; and Charles Whitman, District Attorney of Xew York County. Judging from surface indications at the Republican Convention,
Mr. Whitman is far stronger than his two competitors.
The announcement of ex-Governor William Sulzer that he will enter the Progressive primaries and "beat Davenport two to one" lends more variety to an already muddled situation. Apparently New York is in for a political Donnybrook Fair.
The action of the Republican State Chairman, William Barnes, in announcing that he will not be a candidate for re-electipn to his present position has perhaps caused more discussion in New York than any event in the political affairs of the State for several weeks. Mr. Barnes's friends say that, inasmuch as the State Chairman had previously declared that he would hold his position only long enough to thwart Mr. Roosevelt's plans, this announcement means that he considers the rout of the Roosevelt faction in State politics complete. On the other hand, many Progressives look upon the Barnes retirement under fire as a great political victory, which they declare will prove to be a very important factor in the complete defeat of bossism in New York. Those who are familiar with Mr. Barnes's record are asking what change in machine Republicanism in New York his pro foi-Ttta retirement is likely to make when he still controls the State Committee through his personal henchmen. He was not Chairman when he successfully led the Republican machine against Governor Hughes.
Should the Nation or the State have jurisdiction over the Indians? Emphatically, the Nation. What is now going on in Oklahoma goes to prove it.
In 1908 the Federal Government surrendered a large part of its jurisdiction over the property of the Five Civilized Tribes to the probate courts of Oklahoma. At that time the Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes owned one-half of the land in Oklahoma, worth approximately seven hundred and fifty million dollars. It is estimated that more than one-half that estate has been dissipated and the Indians have nothing to show for it. Mr. M. L. Mott, tribal attorney for the Creek Indians, made a vigorous protest and predicted the wholesale looting of these Indians estates. The same view was expressed by Senator La Follette and others in Congress. These arguments were characterized by the Oklahoma Delegation in Congress as an insult
to their State. It was contended that the State courts could and would protect Indian minors. In 1912 Mr. Mott, after an investigation of the court records in eight of the counties comprising the Creek Nation, brought to Congress a report showing that the court costs and attorneys' and guardians' fees alone had consumed twenty per cent of the value of the estates probated, as compared with less than three per cent in the case of the estates of white minors probated in the same courts. The Hon. Warren K. Morehead. a member of the Board of Indian Commissioners, in 1913 made an extended investigation strongly corroborating the report of Mr. Mott. The Oklahoma Delegation in Congress at first denied the truth of this report, and requested the Governor of the State of Oklahoma to make an investigation. The Governor's investigation verified the Mott report. The loss to these Indians, however, through the courts was the smallest part of the plunder, for many other methods were resorted to in the looting of minors' estates.
Up to this time the protests against the Oklahoma situation had come largely frorr outside the State. At last, however, z friendly voice is heard from an official fron within the State. Miss Kate Barnard, iht Oklahoma Commissioner of Charities ant Correction, has recently issued a circula letter appealing to the citizenship of her owi State and of the Nation for assistance ii protecting the one-third of the Indian popt lation of that State which has not alread been despoiled of its property. She boldi charges the existence of a conspiracy extenc ing from Oklahoma to Washington havin for its purpose the plunder of the remainin thirty thousand restricted Indians.
The Department of Charities and Corre tion, over which Miss Barnard presides, the only branch of government, State t Federal, clothed with legal authority to inte vene in the State courts on behalf of Indii minors. Through her activity and the c operation of Federal employees two yea ago Miss Barnard intervened on behalf of large number of Indian minors, forced d honest guardians to pay back to their war many thousands of dollars which they h squandered, and thus was in a fair w to put a wholesome check upon the pi gramme of graft and corruption practic through ihe probate courts. Then.; charges, because of her activities, influon. hostile to the Indians working througK
State Legislature wrecked her Department by defeating appropriations necessary to employ attorneys to appear in the courts. She charges that the same influences which reached and controlled the State Legislature of Oklahoma have reached and controlled Congress and the present administration of Indian affairs; and in proof of the latter charge she cites two provisions of the Indian Bill for the fiscal year 1915 which were incorporated at the instance of the Oklahoma Delegation and indorsed by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. One of these provisions removes the two civil service heads of the administration of the Five Civilized Tribes and replaces them by one political appointee who is likely to owe his position to the Oklahoma Delegation. The other provision reduces the sum heretofore available for civil service employees needed to protect the interests of the Indians and substitutes an appropriation for Federal probate attorneys outside the civil service who are appointed also with the indorsement of the Oklahoma Delegation.
CAN THE STATE
The Commissioner of Indian Affairs claims that he has secured the adoption of a plan of co-operation between these Federal probate attorneys and the State courts of Oklahoma which will fully protect Indian minors in the future. Miss Barnard, on the other hand, points out the absolute lack of jurisdiction of the Federal proba e attorneys to appear in the State courts, except with the sufferance of the county judges, who, it is charged, have been largely responsible for the wrongs complained of; and she declares that nothing can be expected from Federal attorneys appointed through influences hostile to the interest of the Indians, even if they had jurisdiction. She declares that the appropriation of eightyfive thousand dollars by the Federal Government to pay these attorneys to appear in the State courts is an admission to the country in the most public way possible that the courts of Oklahoma cannot be relied on to protect these Indian estates under their jurisdiction; and she appeals to her fellow-citizens to redeem the State's honor by appropriating funds to rehabilitate her Department and to enable it to exercise the protective functions vested in it by the Constitution and the laws of the State, and thereby demonstrate to the country that the property rights of Indian
children can and will be protected in that State.
Miss Barnard has lived in Oklahoma most of her life; her father was one of the pioneers; she is a Democrat. She ran ten thousand votes ahead of her ticket at the last election. She has declined a nomination for a third term, in order that she might not be charged with having selfish motives in making this appeal for her Department on behalf of the Indians of her State.
Miss Barnard's appeal is one of the most significant as well as one of the most hopeful recent signs in Indian affairs. The Government made a mistake when it surrendered to the State its jurisdiction over the Indians of Oklahoma. The question is: Can the evils resulting from that mistake be best remedied by the Government's retaking that jurisdiction, or by State legislation providing an adequate probate procedure and supplying appropriations sufficient to make effective the protective arm of the State Department of Charities and Correction? As bearing on that question we may say that history proves that locally elected judges furnish inadequate protection to the individual against injustice sanctioned by local prejudice.
The plan of co-operation between State probate courts and the politically appointed, jurisdictionless Federal probate attorneys by whom the Commissioner of Indian Affairs declares he is now protecting these Indians can have no other effect than to postpone the day of real and effective remedy through either State or Federal legislation. Either the State of Oklahoma should be compelled to enact legislation necessary for the protection of the interests the Government intrusted to its keeping, or the Federal Government should retake the jurisdiction which it mistakenly surrendered.
The fact that the Oklahoma influence has been strong enough to induce a Commissioner of Indian Affairs to indorse the plan of substituting the spoils system for civil service in a State that contains one-third of the Indian population of the country, and where corruption and plunder of Indians is without precedent in the history of the Nation, affords the strongest argument of recent years in favor of removing the Bureau of Indian Affairs from partisan politics.
WAR AND AMERICAN
Very few ship-owners have taken advantage of the new registry legislation by which