the conclusion of the camp the men who took the oath received railway transportation to their homes.

In this connection a word of caution to the twelve thousand Plattsburg men of 1916 is most advisable. Already those who attended the camps during the present summer have begun to receive invitations from agents in Washington and elsewhere to place their claims with the Government in the hands of interested solicitors. The fees charged for this wholly unnecessary work range from two dollars to ten per cent of the money to be received. There is not the slightest excuse for paying attention to the efforts of any one of these claim agents or claim bureaus. Plattsburg men are advised, if in doubt as to the proper procedure, to write either to the Military Training Camps Association, at 31 Nassau Street, New York City, or to the auditor of the War Department. They will receive the money very properly due them from the Government just as soon as it is possible to arrange for its distribution.

MILITARY TRAINING IN
NEW YORK STATE

The Outlook has previously had occasion to discuss the law for the military and physical training of the school-children of New York State and the steps which have been taken to put the provisions of this law into effect. The law itself can well be described as a poorly drawn law which has been placed in admirable hands for execution. As readers of The Outlook know, the Military Training Commission, responsible for putting this law into effect, consists of Major-General O'Ryan, Dr. John H. Finley, and Dr. George J. Fisher.

Since the appointment of this Commission the duties attendant upon the recent mobilization of the Guard of New York State have prevented Major-General O'Ryan from taking as active a part as he must have desired, and as the other two members of the Committee have hoped that he might be able to take, in planning for putting into effect the Military Training Law. Nevertheless, despite his preoccupation with the active duties of the militia, he has given valuable advice and counsel to his civilian colleagues. They have found him more than ready to aid them in their desire to place the work of military training upon a broad basis of physical education and social discipline.

Considering the short time that it has had, the Commission has already accom

plished a remarkable amount of work. It has already provided a uniform system of physical training adapted to all classes of schools, much of which is available for use during the present year. In 1917 it is expected that this system of physical training and education in the questions of hygiene can be put in full force.

Dr. Finley, in a letter accompanying the report of the Military Training Commission to the Regents of the University of the State of New York, says of this programme for physical training :

Every phase of this programme has been in successful operation in some of the most progressive schools of this or other States, but here for the first time, in this country at any rate, have they been brought under State prescription into one systematic programme for practical operation.

It is to touch every child-boy and girl-over eight years of age, in public and private school.

It is appreciated that the most vital factor in the programme is, after all, the teacher or supervisor to whom this important work is intrusted. ... One such man of adequate training, of zealous interest, and of faculty for this work in each district, would do more to develop wholesome recreational and civic activities in the communities than any other possible agency. . . .

As interpreted by the Military Training Commission, physical training covers medical inspection, talks and recitations in hygiene, and all forms of healthful physical exercise, such as setting-up drills, gymnastic exercises, supervised recreation, organized play, athletics, and a great variety of individual recreational activities.

The programme of physical training will have its compensation in less sickness, longer lives, and greater human efficiency-and that means greater economic benefit, as well as higher effort and nobler accomplishment.

Every private school as well as every public school must make, even this year, provision for supervised physical exercise in accordance with the orders of the Commission. The amount of exercise which is compulsory is specified for the current year; but this represents only part of what will be ultimately required.

Those who saw in the provisions of the Welch-Slater Bill the approach of the dread ogre of militarism should by all means secure a copy of the syllabus of the physical training programme provided for the present year. Probably their worst fears will be realized when they find that the children of New

York State are to be dragoon.ed into playing Drop the Handkerchief, Farmer in the Dell, Prisoner's Base, Shadow Tag, How Many Miles to Babylon? and Skin the Goat. Possibly our anti-vivisectionists might object to the title of this last game, but we do not think that even our most enthusiastic advocates of the abolition of lead soldiers can find in this an approach to Prussianism.

THE MILITARY TRAINING

COMMISSION: WORK THAT
IS STILL TO BE DONE

So much has already been accomplished by the Military Training Commission that it is not yet fair to ask of them a complete summary of what they hope to do in the future in the matter of the practical military training of the boys of New York State. From the sound basis of physical training which they have already provided, and from the plan which has been foreshadowed to us by a member of the Commission, we can safely say, however, that we believe that the system to be provided will prove to be of wholesome civic utility, entirely apart from the military value it will undoubtedly possess.

The expected provisions for the inculcation of sane patriotism, the disciplining of the body and the mind, the training of boys in the enjoyment of an outdoor life, and the cultivation of initiative and courage will make the programme of military training for New York State a very different thing from the oldfashioned and burdensome close-order drills which once occupied so large a part in cadet soldiery.

Sup

It has been suggested that under the new order of things school-boys may be given a chance to earn badges signifying the service which they are qualified to give their State and country. The Boy Scouts already have such a system of merit badges. plied, however, by the State itself, the worth of such insignia would be trebled, both as an incentive to endeavor and as a stimulation to patriotism-the only patriotism worth while, the patriotism of service rendered. The Outlook hopes that some time this plan may be put in successful operation.

THE "GREAT ADVENTURE"
MOVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA

A vigorous single-tax campaign is being carried on in California under the taking title of the "Great Adventure." At the November election the voters of the State will cast their

355

ballots for or against a sweeping measure submitted to them on the petition of 137,000

voters.

The measure provides that hereafter all public revenues (State, county, or municipal) shall be raised by taxation of land values exclusive of improvements, except as income and inheritance tax laws may provide funds for old age pensions, workmen's disability and unemployment insurance, and mothers' endowments. Just how the equal valuation of land demanded is to be ascer

tained is left open. The intent is plainly stated to take for public use the rental and site values of land and "to reduce land holdings to those only who live on or make productive use of it." This, the supporters of the measure assert, would be "to secure to every adult power to own his own home and direct his own life and work; to abolish landlordism, pauperism, and disemployment, to shift the tax burden from labor to privilege and monopoly."

Three years ago The Outlook summarized the notable advances in the progress of the single tax in law enactment in Great Britain, in British colonies (and especially in Canada), and in Germany, and described the active political support of the idea in New Jersey and New York. But in all this progress the effort was of a step-by-step kind and of a limited application; the California attempt is sweeping and universal. The special conditions in California are urged in support of the measure. Thus it is said.

Vast idle mineral lands-gold, silver, coal, iron, oil, timber, and ranch lands-are already closed to the people of California. . . . City building sites, smaller in area but immense in value, are likewise held idle for speculation. To the would-be user ready to dig and plow and build these lands might as well be sunk to the bottom of the sea. He must pick out his ranch or his lot as if among islands here and there.

And he must pay a price or a rental almost out of reach because of the extreme scarcity of land in our great State of California. Cost of living soars, wages lower, unemployment, poverty, and misery result.

The Great Adventure" campaign is being pushed vigorously, largely under the leadership of "Luke North" (the pseudonym of the editor of "Everyman"). It seems to be supported by many radical thinkers who are not so much concerned with the measure itself as with the desire to instill their doctrine that ownership of the earth apart from occupation and use

is an "illusion" as well as an injustice. The "adventurers" are being aided materially with money and speakers by single-tax associations outside the State, such as that founded by the late Joseph Fels. There is thus an earnest effort to carry the single tax in Henry George's own State. The advocates of the bill declare that it represents the most vital issue the people of the State have ever had a chance to vote on-" whether the land and its resources shall continue to be controlled by a few speculators and gamblers in human necessities and most of them held idle, or whether they shall be made free and open to all the people on equal terms."

One result of this campaign will undoubtedly be to arouse interest the country over in the single-tax question. We recommend for a clear view of the subject a recently published book by Professor Arthur N. Young. of Princeton, on "The Single Tax Movement in the United States."

BIRDS

The Protection-of-Migratory-Birds Treaty between the United States and Great Britain which was negotiated last spring was approved by the Senate just before the adjournment of Congress and ratified by the President. The exchange of ratifications awaits the action of the British Government.

In general the treaty provides for the protection of birds in the United States and in Canada. In particular the treaty provides that no bird important to agriculture because it is an insect destroyer shall be shot at any time; that the close season on migratory game birds shall be between March 10 and September 1. except that the close season for shore birds shall be between February 1 and August 15; that the season for hunting may be further restricted to such period, not exceeding three months and a half, as the contracting Powers may deem appropriate; that for the protection of special birds there shall be, in the first place, for wood duck and eider duck either a close season extending over a period of at least five years, or refuges shall be established for them, while, in the second place, for band-tailed pigeons, little brown, sandhill, and whooping cranes, for swans, curlews, and almost all shore birds (plover, snipe, and woodcock being exempted), there is to be a continuous close season for ten years; that the taking of nests or eggs of migratory game or migratory insectivorous

birds (which are non-game birds), or other migratory non-game birds is prohibited, ex cept for scientific or propagating purposes and, finally, that the international traffic in any birds or eggs during the continuance of the close season is likewise prohibited.

Thus migratory birds are divided into three classes: (1) migratory game birds; (2) mi gratory insectivorous birds; and (3) other migratory non-game birds. Where a bird falls in one of the classes of migratory birds covered by the treaty, it covers not only all individuals of the species which are actually migratory, but other individuals of the species which may reside through the year in the same State. In other words, the species is declared by the treaty to be a migratory one, and the failure of certain individual birds to migrate does not nullify the protection afforded by the law.

'Regarding non-game birds, the treaty recognizes some birds that are neither game birds nor insectivorous birds-cranes, for instance. The treaty protects them as much as it does the migratory game birds and the insectivorous birds. The non-migratory birds are the ones left as plunder for the hunter. Their status depends upon State laws, and if the State laws do not protect them they will not be protected. Fortunately, they are few in number, and consist chiefly of grouse, quail, woodpeckers, hawks, and owls. It is feared that non-migratory game birds are going to be wiped out completely at an early date in all localities wherein they are not given five-year close seasons to enable them to recuperate.

Be this as it may, the result of this treaty must benefit the birds, the real sportsmen. and the public.

In the first place, the treaty saves from depletion and threatened annihilation over a thousand species of waterfowl, insectivorous and game birds which migrate across our country twice each year.

Secondly, the real sportsmen among our more than five million sportsmen will welcome the fairer opportunity to the birds, the spring shooting being now eliminated when migratory birds are flying towards their nesting grounds.

Finally, all men will take pride in the guaranty, not only to the present generation of a reasonable supply of migratory wild life, but to future generations of their rightful heritage.

1916

THE NATION'S TWO PATHS

THE LINE OF DUTY AND THE LINE OF LEAST RESISTANCE Many Americans are wondering what is the real issue in this campaign. Their minds are confused. Political principles seem obscured by a multitude of unrelated questions. The Presidential campaign seems to some to consist merely in a contest between two men, and the question at issue which of the two men the individual voter personally prefers; to others, the chief issue seems to be the Eight-Hour Law; to others, the chance of our embroilment in the world war; to others, Preparedness; to still others, the tariff question; and to a very large number, our policy toward Mexico. In addition, there are other issues tending to complicate the situation-the issue of the Philippines, of Colombia, of the merit system in the civil service, of our relations to Japan, and so on almost without limit.

Not one of these is the real question which the country is to decide on November 7. Rather, all of these are parts of the one great question-Which path shall the country follow for the next four years? Shall it be the path along the line of least resistance, or shall it be the path along the line of duty?

The present Administration under PresiIdent Wilson has followed the line of least resistance.

In the matter of Preparedness, the line of least resistance has meant a swinging from one extreme of opposition to the movement for National security to the other extreme of advocating the "greatest navy in the world."

When the Japanese question was raised, the Administration did not ask, What is the duty of this country toward its own citizens and toward Japan? but, rather, sent the Secretary of State to try to smooth things out so that there would be no trouble.

When the Panama tolls question was raised, the President did not lay before Congress a policy of right and of responsibility, but told Congress that unless the tolls law was repealed he would face a situation so delicate that he did not know what would happen.

When the Mexican difficulty confronted the Administration, there was no facing of the duty of protecting Americans in Mexico, but rather the adoption of a policy of "watchful waiting." To avoid trouble, the Administration first advocated that the Mexicans spill all the blood they chose, and then, when

357

complications arose with other nations over the spilling of blood, advocated a course of stopping all revolution. The line of least resistance in Mexico led, on the one side, to the cordial approval of Villa, and then, even when Villa was compliant, to the other extreme of co-operating with Carranza against Villa. To-day the line of least resistance has led the Administration to a recognition of the Carranza Government as a sovereign government, and at the same time to the occupation of Mexican territory on the ground that the Carranza Government is not sovereign.

With reference to Colombia, the line of least resistance has involved the verbal advocacy of paying Colombia twenty-five million dollars in alleged damages, and the failure to press that proposition in the face of hostile opinion.

In our relations with the Philippines the line of least resistance has led to a policy of inviting the Filipinos to expect immediate independence, and then denying it to them.

When a railway strike threatened the Nation, the Administration did not ask, What is the right thing to do? but it waited and waited until the crisis became alarming, and then, following the line of least resistance, did the one thing it believed imperative in order to avoid calamity.

And in all the questions raised by the war in Europe the line of least resistance has meant vigorous and even bellicose words unsupported by acts.

66

In behalf of this policy the argument has been set forth that by pursuing it the President has kept us out of war," has "kept us out of Mexico," has averted a great strike, has provided peace and prosperity, has put "safety first "-has, in short, on all these points enabled the United States to avoid trouble.

To this policy there is only one true alternative. Instead of the line of least resistance, the Nation in all these cases might have followed the line of duty. And the question before the country is whether it shall continue to follow the line of least resistance or shall undertake in every new question, or every recurrence of an old question, to determine what is the line of duty, and then to undertake to follow it, no matter what the resist

ance.

It has been often asked, What would President Wilson's opponents have done in his stead? That question it is impossible for

any one to answer. But it is possible to say what purpose might have been pursued in place of the purpose openly avowed by the supporters of the Administration.

In the next four years the country can on all these questions have, not the purpose of safety, of ease, of present comfort, of the avoidance of immediate trouble, but instead the purpose of duty, of honor, of obligation.

It can deal with the question of Preparedness by asking what the duty of the Nation's Government is in securing the safety of its citizens.

In our relations with Japan the Nation can ask what its duty is toward a friendly and ambitious Power that is consonant with its duty toward the preservation of this Nation's integrity and character.

If ever the question of tolls on the Panama Canal arises again, the Nation can decide that question with a view to the purpose of justice, both toward its own citizens and toward the people of other nations who use the Canal.

In the continuing Mexican problem it can determine its policy by the purpose of protecting the lives and the property of its citizens there, and of fulfilling the Nation's obligation toward other nations which have allowed it to assume responsibility for civilized conditions in its neighborhood.

When the Colombia question comes up, the Nation can decide that question in the light of its duty; and if it decides that it ought to pay the money it will insist upon paying it, and if it decides that the demand for the payment of the money is blackmail it will definitely and unequivocally refuse to pay.

In the matter of the Philippines this Nation can decline to play fast and loose with the dreams of the Filipinos, and can definitely adapt its policy to a purpose of fulfilling its own treaty obligations, protecting the Filipinos from foreign complications, and assuring to its own citizens the maintenance of their rights established through the past eighteen years.

When labor questions arise involving the National function, the Nation can face each question promptly and settle it according, not to the immediate consideration of safety, but to the rights of both parties to the controversy and the rights of the public.

And in the continuing questions or the new issues raised by the war the Nation can set aside considerations merely of comfort in

order to determine its policy according to the duty that a strong nation owes to the weak and a member of the family of nations owes to the public law of nations and to world civilization.

On the whole, President Wilson represents the policy of following the line of least resistance. On the whole, Mr. Hughes represents a policy of following the line of duty.

We wish that Mr. Hughes in his campaign had made it clearer than he has, both by his words and by his general course, that no consideration of safety, of policy, of political benefit, should stand in the way of moral conviction. But Mr. Hughes's record is not merely that which he has made in the campaign, but also that which he has made as Governor and as Justice. And in that record there is evidence that Mr. Hughes was unswerving in any course determined by obligation and public duty. His candidacy represents the only alternative to the candidacy of the President, whose course has been defended, not on the ground that it has been right, but on the ground that it has been safe.

It is between these two lines--the line of least resistance and the line of duty-that the country must decide.

THE GERMAN SUBMARINE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Americans have no reason to be surprised at the transfer of submarine warfare to the waters near the coast of the United States. The German Government has said nothing and the American Government has done nothing to lead Americans to believe their coastal waters immune from such outrages as the German submarines have committed on the other side of the Atlantic. In sinking merchant vessels in the neighborhood of Nantucket and leaving their crews and, in more than one instance, passengers, including women and children, adrift in small boats on the open sea, Germany has simply continued in our neighborhood her familiar piratical methods.

If the Teutonic submarine officers in these recent instances have not been as ruthless as they or others have been in such cases as that of the Lusitania and the Arabic and the Ancona, it does not follow that they observed either the laws of warfare or the principles of humanity.

If a British cruiser at the opening of the war-before there had been any submarine torpedoings-had held up a neutral steam