1914

lishment of a proper reserve of equipment and men for the ranks is the problem of providing for the men to be thus trained and armed an adequate reserve of officers. This is the problem which at present is causing such grave difficulty to England. During the last few months she has had not only to train private soldiers, but to train officers to give this training—an almost unsurmountable task. This country was confronted with a similar crisis during the Civil War, for at the beginning of that gigantic struggle both officers and men were handicapped by a lack of knowledge of the rudimentary elements of discipline and military science. Towards the end of the war the private who enlisted found himself immeasurably better off than the private of '61. The soldier of '63 fitted into a smoothly running machine officered by men of experience, and faced a very different situation from the volunteer who fought at Bull Run.

For the production of a reserve force of officers there are existent the following potential sources of supply:

First. The graduates of the better class of military schools; the number is very limited.

Second. A certain number of former noncommissioned officers of the regular army who have the necessary qualifications de

759

manded of the lower grades of volunteer officers.

Third. A very small list of men who have qualified through examination for appointments as officers of volunteer organizations.

Fourth. A certain number of men who have passed through the recently established student instruction camps.

Of this last class The Outlook will have later more to say. The benefits that have

come to the young college and high school graduates who have attended these camps in increasing numbers since their establishment form a noteworthy chapter in our educational history. Suffice it to say here, however, that from the men available there could be each year appointed from five hundred to one thousand volunteer provisional second lieutenants in the various arms of the service. These men could serve for one year, receiving the pay and allowance of a regular officer of their rank.

Such a programme as we have here outlined would in the end produce for our country an adequate military reserve without the necessity of any disproportionate increase in the number of men now under arms and without the slightest danger of militarism, or the remotest trespass upon the individual liberties of our citizens.

TH

HE evacuation of Vera Cruz by the American troops under General Funston's command on Monday, November 23, took place three years to a month after the assumption of the Presidency of Mexico by Madero. As our soldiers marched on board the transports, Villa's forces were advancing toward the capital, Mexico City, and were expecting to occupy it within a few days; Carranza had fallen back to Orizaba, which is on the railway leading from Mexico City to Vera Cruz; General Blanco had been preserving order in Mexico City, but two days after the American withdrawal newspaper despatches reported mobs looting and terror in the capital. In other words, we leave Vera Cruz at a crucial moment in Mexican history, when war is raging between the two foremost Constitutionalist leaders, and when the prospect of an established government, one that this country may recognize as responsible, seems remote.

A new epoch in the revolutionary struggle in Mexico has evidently begun. It seems, then, a fit time to review briefly and broadly the three years since November, 1911, when (Diaz having resigned after an astonishingly weak attempt to stem by arms the tide of revolt against one-man government) Francisco Madero was chosen President. Elections in Mexico are almost always farcical, but at the time Madero was really the choice of the people. An idealist, a brilliant writer on democracy, perfectly sincere in his belief that the people should own the land, he was also a visionary, a spiritualist, and the most impractical of men. Soon many of his own generals deserted him; insurgents in the north under Vasquez Gomez and in the south under Zapata disturbed the peace; finance, legislation, reform—all were in confusion.

Madero's fall in some form was inevitable. It came horribly and turbulently after a fierce fight in the capital itself. By the treachery

of Generals Huerta and Blanquet in conjunction with Felix Diaz, who commanded the insurgents, Madero was deposed (March, 1913). His assassination and that of his Vice-President, Suarez, followed. General Huerta was made Provisional President. That the death of Madero was at least indirectly to be laid at Huerta's door was then and is now generally believed. The assassination was carefully shrouded in mystery. Many accounts of the crime have been given; the exact facts are not positively known. But it was in Huerta's interest, he and his fellow-conspirators profited, and no real effort was made to punish the actual perpetrators.

The Administration at Washington took the view that it could not recognize a Government founded on assassination, and refused to deal with Huerta even as a de facto ruler. In this stand The Outlook supported the action of President Wilson as high-minded and justified by the facts. But out of this policy grew the set idea of President Wilson that the only thing of importance in Mexico was that Huerta must be "eliminated." Out of this in turn grew a course of action which was called watchful waiting," but which really amounted to tacit support of Huerta's enemies and to discrimination in the matter of the embargo on arms. It is true that through Mr. John Lind, the President's personal representative, terms were suggested to Huerta for an understanding between the two Governments, but these terms included self-elim-. ination by Huerta, and were scornfully rejected (September, 1913).

66

As

Meanwhile, hostility to Huerta had flamed up all over Mexico. General Carranza, Governor of the State of Coahuila, a man of education and a strong advocate of constitutional measures, formed a government of his own and took the field. Zapata, always the enemy of authority, made trouble in the south. Francisco (or Pancho) Villa, ex-bandit, ignorant, forceful, beloved and followed by the peons as their friend, grew in strength and activity in northern central Mexico. a leader of soldiers he is a phenomenon. Those who believe in him declare that, despite the cruelties and crimes that mark his career, Villa is in earnest in his hatred of despotism and desires to give the common man a chance, and they say also that he has shown marvelous talent not only as a fighter but as an organizer and administrator. He has never, we believe, lost a battle. One by one, Juarez, Chihuahua, Torreon, Ojinaga,

Saltillo, Zacatecas, and other important places fell before him, until it was evident that Mexico City was almost within his grasp. He recognized Carranza as First Chief, but be tween them grew up jealousy and distrust which culminated when it became clear that Carranza did not mean to let Villa lead the attack on Mexico City.

So stood the situation when the Vera Cruz clash came between the United States and Huerta's forces at Vera Cruz (May, 1914). The occasion of the occupation was a disrespect shown our flag, and apologized for. but not with the full reparation demanded. It is considered reasonable by many students of history that behind this was the intention to prevent arms for Huerta being landed at Mexican ports. If so, the desired result was not obtained. Vera Cruz was closed to Huerta, Tampico was soon occupied by the Constitutionalists; but Puerto Mexico was still open, and through it went arms in the German ship which had been stopped at Vera Cruz. The fighting which accompanied our occupation of Vera Cruz resulted in about twenty deaths on our side; perhaps ten times that number among the Mexicans. Whatever the political or international aspects of the occupation now. ended, it is admitted on every hand that American sailors, soldiers, and marines, under their officers, have given Mexico a splendid example of municipal administration, orderly conduct, and civic cleanliness, physical and moral.

The occupation of Vera Cruz led to the assembly of the "A B C" Conference at Washington (May, 1914)-a most mendable attempt to use the influence of the three greatest South American countries (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile) to compose the differences between the United States and Mexico and between the two factions in Mexico. It had, as a matter of course, no power to act without the consent of the parties involved, and it came to the rather lame conclusion involved in the offer of the United States through its delegates to forego reparation for the Vera Cruz incident and to recognize as Provisional President any candidate upon whom the Constitutionalists and Huertistas could agree, with the understanding that a fair election should follow. Needless to say. the two Mexican factions could not agree upon a candidate, and the resignation of Huerta left the protocol of the Conference in the air. This resignation took place in July last. Dictator from the start, Huerta became a despot

when he drove a Congress from its hall by bayonets and imprisoned a large part of its members, while dark suspicion of guilt for the death of Senator Dominguez and others clung to his skirts. Beaten in the field and embarrassed financially and commercially, he fled, and his name has already passed out of discussion of Mexican affairs. It may at least be said for him that he tried to preserve the life and property of foreigners when possible, and that there is no such long list of crimes against Americans, Europeans, and Mexicans adduced against him as against Villa and Zapata.

'With the departure of Huerta a curious period of fencing for political and material advantage began between Villa and Carranza. Villa disclaimed designs on the Presidency, but vehemently declared that Carranza must not be Provisional President. Carranza called a convention of military leaders at Mexico City, but Villa refused to attend.

T

761

Carranza's resignation was declined by this convention. What purported to be a convention of conciliation was held at Aguas Calientes, but it soon became evident that it was in the interest of Villa, and its nominee for Provisional President, Mr. Gutierrez, was promptly denounced as a rebel by Carranza. Farcical correspondence ensued between Carranza and Villa as to a proposal that both should leave Mexico. Meanwhile Villa moved his army southward, and at this moment a new civil war in Mexico appears unavoidable, with dim prospects of such a stable government in the near future as could be recognized by the United States.

Can Mexico right its own chaotic state by effort of its own, or must there be control from the outside? This is rapidly becoming a question that must be answered. Some aspects of the Mexican problem are discussed in an editorial on another page.

HE most stirring speech at the Philadelphia Convention of the American Federation of Labor, which was in session from November 9 to 21 inclusive, was not that delivered by Mother Jones, of Colorado, or Jeff Davis, the President of the "Hoboes'" Union; it was the address delivered by Frank P. Walsh, of Kansas City, Chairman of the Commission on Industrial Relations.

And this fact marked the general character of the Federation meeting. It was a high grade convention of the highest-grade labor leaders in this country. Every maudlin appeal was frowned down upon, although the Convention was not without sentiment of the truest kind. The address delivered by Mrs. Sarah Conboy, of the Textile Workers' Union, in behalf of the strikers in Atlanta, was a simple statement of their physical conditions; but instantly the delegates began to empty their pockets until the sum of five hundred dollars was raised.

Mr. Walsh's address was a masterly presentation of the work of the Industrial Commission. The speech was crowded with epigrams, but there was never a straining after words. With sledge-hammer blows this

man from Kansas City-lawyer, reformer, publicist, economist-struck at fundamental evils in our social system. In outlining the work of the Commission Mr. Walsh declared that it was its purpose "to give a voice to that disinherited of God's creatures, the exploited man; to give a voice to a cause more piteous-the cause of the exploited woman; and to make articulate the stifled whimper of the saddest of all elements in the maelstrom of American industry-the exploited and forgotten child."

Nearly four hundred delegates represented the two million members of the American Federation of Labor at the Federation Convention. Practically the same delegates attend the successive conventions of the Federation, not because the conventions are self-perpetuating, as every delegate is elected by the constituency which he represents, but because it is believed that the men who are sent are the truest representatives of organized labor in this country.

It was a conservative group. The Federation of Labor is increasingly conservative. The character of the delegates themselves is changing. While they are practically the same men who ran the Federation a dozen

and more years ago, the men themselves are different from what they were when they first secured control of the labor movement in this country.

But this very fact has resulted in the development of a radical group in the Federation. The Socialists have increased their strength from year to year, until they now number about one-fourth of the total number of delegates. However, the conservatives were so powerfully organized at the Philadelphia Convention that the Socialists were not given even their usual opportunity to discuss their peculiar doctrines. The "administration" is apparently unalterably opposed to Socialism, not one of the members of the Executive Council being a Socialist.

An attempt was made by the Socialist representative of the Milwaukee Central Labor Union to shut out the fraternal delegates from religious bodies who have been accepted by the Federation for nine years, but on account of the faulty character of the resolution the matter was not even discussed by the Convention. As usual, much time was occupied in the discussion of jurisdictional rights, something like a dozen unions being involved. On account of the specialization of industry, labor unions have been organized for several groups, as in the wood-working industry, for example, each group becoming extremely zealous that the special kind of work allotted to it be done by that group alone. But overlapping has occurred, which has resulted in deep-seated quarrels.

James O'Connell, former President of the International Association of Machinists, and a member of the Commission on Industrial Relations, has for several years been Chairman of the Committee to settle jurisdictional strife. At the Philadelphia Convention Mr. O'Connell suggested that a permanent Board of Conciliation and Mediation be appointed to hear all complaints in jurisdictional matters during the intervals of the conventions, the members of the Board to give their entire time to this work. It was argued that if these matters were taken hold of in their incipiency, much bitterness might be avoided. However, the entire proposal was referred to the Executive Council, with instructions that the questions be threshed out during the coming year and reported upon at the next Convention. The fear was expressed during the discussion that the plan might result in giving the Board too much power, although attention was called to the fact that the

Board's tack was simply that of mediation and not arbitration.

Mr. Gompers's salary was increased from $5,000 to $7,500, in spite of his very earnest protest that workingmen throughout the country might object. Several delegates informed him, however, that the Convention was increasing the President's salary, not his, and that he might not be the next President of the Federation. It is quite generally agreed that Mr. Gompers may hold his present position as long as he wishes to do so, in spite of a strong minority in the Convention which believes that the Federation of Labor is becoming a "fossilized" organization, largely through Mr. Gompers's influence.

A severe blow was struck at grafting labor papers which employ blackmailing methods in securing advertisements from merchants and other business men, and hereafter all union labels will be denied such publications. The only time that President Gompers called upon the sergeant-at-arms to put out a delegate unless he sat down was when one enthusiast for the use of the union label insisted upon mentioning the name of another delegate whom he accused of smoking non-union cigars. However, the name of the "guilty" delegate did not reach the ears of the Convention. Mr. Gompers is himself a cigarmaker, and it was in such acts and decisions as the above that he often displayed his sense of fair play.

A spirited debate as to whether it is best to secure a shorter work-day through legislation or through trades union activity occupied an entire evening's session. A committee, of which James Duncan was chairman, reported that while it believed that State legislatures and Congress might pass laws with regard to hours of labor for women and children, under conditions that involve health and morals, and in case of work done for State and municipal governments, it was opposed to these bodies making such laws for all workers, as they were often restrictive in their influence, preventing some workers from obtaining a shorter work-day than the law prescribes. The Convention on a roll call voted to support the committee in its recommendation. This was regarded as one of the most important and far-reaching decisions of the Convention. It threw back upon the trades unions the chief responsibility for securing the shorter work-day.