against the advance towards Bapaume, and by the British in gaining and holding the famous Schwaben redoubt, which had long been a thorn in the side of the British attack. Week by week the Somme advance goes on, and, small as are the gains measured by miles, there seems to be force in General Haig's declaration that "the uninterrupted, systematic pressure of the Entente armies must finally exhaust the morale and material forces of the Central Powers, especially as to the existing reserves of war material.” THE ALLIES' NOTE AS The full text of the note from the British and French Governments in reply to the American note in regard to the treatment of neutral mail by the Allies was published last week. It is rather a discussion of points and principles involved than a proposal for new action. The Allies quite correctly declare (and sustain their contention by historical instances) that there is no real difference of opinion between this country and themselves as to the right of a belligerent to examine neutral mail whenever it is probable that such mail may contain contraband matter. On the other hand, every one concedes that neutral countries and individuals are entitled to have their mail held inviolable unless such a probability exists. So that the real question is whether in their conduct in this war the Allies in exercising recognized rights have pushed those rights to such a point as to violate their obligations. The note points out that information for the enemy may be as truly military assistance, and therefore contraband, as munitions, and also that under the modern parcels post methods it is quite possible that considerable quantities of things which are physically contraband may be conveyed. As to the first point, the note shows that this is not a theory merely by asserting that as a pure matter of fact hostile acts projected through the mails have been frustrated and dangerous plots have been discovered in the mails and baffled. Furthermore, the Allies claim that money, or credit for money, sent to an enemy country through the mail is quite as much military assistance as commodities. Our Government has tried to make a distinction between the ordinary seizure of mails on the high seas and the taking of neutral ships into British ports for the searching of mails there, the imputation being that things are 393* done in the latter form of search which would not and could not be done in the former. The Allies reply that the ships are taken into port with the consent of their owners and for the mutual convenience of the searching government and the owners, and that the Allies have never subjected the mails to a different treatment from what might legally have been carried out on the high seas. to the delay and inconvenience caused by the searching of the mails, it is admitted that this must exist to some extent, but it is claimed that steps have been taken to reduce the delay and to make the search as little injurious as possible. As That no search for hostile information could be worth while unless covers of letters even from neutrals to neutrals were opened is asserted; but it is claimed that letters which do not cover improper purposes are not molested, although just how the distinction is made does not seem very clear. In this connection the Allies, with some natural feeling, point out that many neutral mail-bags have been, "not examined, to be sure, but purely and simply destroyed at sea by the German naval authorities," and refers to one recent case, that of the Swedish steamer Hudikswall, carrying 670 mailbags. As the American note referred to the Hague Convention XI, the Allies state that they do not consider that convention binding because it has not been signed or ratified by several of the belligerents, but add that they recognize the force of the convention as having the validity, not of law, but of reason, and that they have guided their action as regards mails so far as possible by the principles therein laid down. In short, the tone of the note is conciliatory and reasonable but firm. It expresses an intention to do everything possible to secure neutral rights, but not an intention to push theoretical considerations to a point which would allow neutral mails to be used as a valuable asset to the enemies of the Allies. PRESIDENT WILSON SPEAKS Shadow Lawn, the President's summer home on the coast of New Jersey, was the scene of his regular Saturday campaign speech on October 14, when he addressed a large delegation of men and women from Pennsylvania. The larger part of his speech was devoted to a discussion of machine rule. The President, without mentioning the names of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Pinchot and the other Progressives who in Pennsylvania supported the Democratic nominee for Governor two years ago against the Penrose machine, declared that "certain gentlemen" who had "allied themselves with the Progressive Democrats" have now "joined their fortunes with the very machine which they were then trying to break up." He similarly attacked the Republicans of New Jersey by declaring that they were "trying to put in the saddle in the State of New Jersey influences which came out of one of the most lawless communities in this State-I mean the communities that lie along the coast of Atlantic County, communities which have habitually refused to obey the laws of the State." The President, in connection with this, as with his references to Pennsylvania, omitted all names. This sort of veiled attack renders it impossible for the accused to make any answer without naming themselves, and yet leaves them, if silent, under imputations which may be altogether false. The President praised the rank and file of the Progressives, and declared that the contests at Chicago four years ago and this year "were for the control of the machinery of the party "-manifestly the Republican party. The President added that now, after the smoke has cleared away, we see standing out before us that familiar Old Guard that has never for a moment been disturbed in its possession of power." 66 He emphasized the importance of electing a Congress in sympathy with the President, for, he said, "a President without a Congress. . . can get you into trouble, but he cannot get you out.' He made a telling thrust at the Republicans when he reminded his hearers of the occasion "when the Republican machine was able to compel the majority of its members in the House of Representatives to vote that American citizens had no right to travel on the high seas." He declared that his opponents were not criticising what was done by the Administration, but only arguing that the thing that was done was done in the wrong way. And he added: "They never can get over that fundamental uneasiness, gentlemen, that America is in charge of somebody else than themselves." He told his hearers that "at the present moment it is almost impossible to do anything positive in the field of foreign affairs because foreign nations have been led to suppose that there may be a change in our foreign policy.' This change of foreign policy he described as the drawing of the United States into the European war and the exploitation of our neighbors in Mexico. He emphasized what he had said in Omaha by this declaration : America is always ready to fight for things that are American. She does not permit herself to be embroiled, but she does know what it would be to be challenged. And when once she is challenged, there is not a man in the United States, I venture to say, so mean, so forgetful of the great heritage of this Nation, that he would not give everything he possessed, including life itself, to stand by the honor of this Nation. The President left undefined, however, what he regards as a challenge to a nation's honor. He declared that America was saving herself for "something greater that is to come "—namely, a final league of nations formed "in order to show all mankind that no man may lead any nation into acts of aggression without having all the other nations of the world leagued against it." The President did not indicate how a war of aggression could be more clearly demonstrated than that which Germany has been carrying on for two years, nor how the future league of nations would be more effective than the league of nations that is now opposing that aggression. MR. ROOSEVELT AT WILKES-BARRE On the same day that the President was speaking at Shadow Lawn Mr. Roosevelt was addressing the crowds in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania, notably at Wilkes-Barre. He characteristically went to a labor center to speak on the dangers coming from autocratic action on the part of labor leaders. Without going into the merits of the eight-hour day, except to say that he believed in it and desired it for the butler and the farm-hand as well, he did most emphatically condemn the method of passing the Adamson so-called Eight-Hour Law when, under what he described as "threat and duress," the principle of arbitration was repudiated and a law put through without an examination of the facts. He declared that President Wilson had furnished his own condemnation of this Act by saying that he wished to provide against "the recurrence of such unhappy situations in the future" by securing "the calm and fair arbitration of all such disputes in the days to come." Mr. Roosevelt's comment was that "it is impossible to devise a worse way of vindicating a principle than to flinch ignominiously from enforcing it in the case at issue, and at the same time to seek to cover the ignominy by vociferous protestations about applying it in the nebulous future." 395 to his election wanted to get control of the banks and the banking system, and, in order to back their financial enterprises in Mexico and elsewhere, to control the army and navy of the United States as well; and he urged his hearers to "consent in concert to the same leadership" in order to "hold our own against every kind of inroad." He charged that "very subtle inroads will be attempted;" and he warned his hearers that "we have got to be on the alert to hold what we have got." In brief, the President's warning was against what has been called the "invisible government." 66 In prompt reply Mr. Hughes, on the next day, at Sioux City, Iowa, declared it to be a preposterous charge " that he had become a sponsor for invisible government; that he met that charge by a brief review of his own course as Governor of New York State. He reminded his hearers of the gas investigation which he undertook before he was Governor and which resulted in legislation, and of the investigation into insurance, which, he said, related to, "the security of the homes of America." Then he reminded his hearers of what happened when he went to the Governor's chair-that there was no barter of appointments for legislation, no semblance of the assertion of Mr. Wilson's master in this matter." And he then quoted the saying of Mr. Garretson, the Chairman of the Railroad Men's Union leaders: "In times like this men go back to primal instinct to the day of the cave man with his half-gnawed bone, snarling at the other cave man who wanted to take his bone away. We leaders are fighting for our men. The railroads are fighting for their stockholders, and the shippers for themselves. And the public will pay." And Mr. Roosevelt concluded by pointing out to the wage-earners who heard him that those who advocated a policy of surrender in the interest of the working-invisible government, no secret or improper man when they feel the pressure will also be ready to surrender against the workingman's interest when they feel the pressure from the other side. And he enforced that lesson by this story: "All One day I was riding across a neighbor's ranch with a puncher I had just hired, and we came across a maverick. We got down our ropes, threw the maverick, and built a little fire of sage-brush to heat one of the cinch rings; and the puncher started to run on the brand. I said, "Put on the thistle brand "-the brand of the range we were on. He answered, right, boss, I know my business;" and in an other minute he had put on my brand, remarking, "I always put on the boss's brand." I answered, "Well, go back to the ranch and get your time." He jumped up and said, "What's that for? I was putting on your brand, wasn't I?" I answered: "Yes, my friend, you were putting on my brand, and if you will steal for me you will steal from me!" MR. HUGHES ANSWERS MR. WILSON On the Monday following his Saturday speech at Shadow Lawn the President declared that the reactionary leaders opposed influence; that when the great subject of the regulation of public utilities came up he and his associates "went straight to the people of the State," and the people sustained their policies. He also reminded his hearers of the reorganization of the Labor Department. And he summed up by saying that he stood determinedly "against every alliance of business and politics, against every subversion of the machinery of government to any private purpose." In relation to this charge, Mr. George W. Perkins also made a statement in the form of a letter to the President, in which he declared that the "audacity of some of the statements" made in the President's Monday speech was "past belief." And he continued: "We Progressives who are supporting Mr. Hughes are supporting him because, as Governor of New York, his acts squared with his promises and verbal statements, and we are opposing you because yours do not. We are not for fine phrases; we are for real accomplishments. Your motto seems to be, A problem postponed is a problem solved." It was in the Sioux City speech also that Mr. Hughes answered inquiries about the Eight-Hour Law; and when one of these "hecklers" asked whether he would repeal the Adamson Law, Mr. Hughes replied, "My dear sir, you cannot repeal a surrender." He also pointed out that the law will cease to be in effect before Congress, under the next Administration, assembles in regular session. And, furthermore, in answer to a question as to what he would have done, Mr. Hughes said: If arbitration had been refused, I should have gone right to the American people, stated the facts, and put the responsibility where it belonged. I should at the same time have secured a commission of inquiry so impartial, so fair, as to command the respect of the entire country, and directing public opinion to that end. There is no group of men in the United States that would have dared hold up the instrumentalities of Congress if that were done. A COUNCIL OF NATIONAL defense President Wilson has made public the names of seven men whom he has appointed members of an advisory commission to be associated with the Council of National Defense created by the last session of Congress. They are all men of achievement and distinction in their several fields of activity. The seven men are: Daniel Willard, President of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad; Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor; Dr. Franklin H. Martin, a distinguished surgeon recommended by the affiliated medical societies of the country; Mr. Howard E. Coffin, the well-known automobile engineer, who has served as chairman of the Committee on Industrial Preparedness of the Naval Consulting Board; Dr. Hollis Godfrey, President of the Drexel Institute at Philadelphia; and Mr. Julius Rosenwald, the president of a large Chicago mail-order house. The Outlook has already discussed the organization of the Council of National Defense provided for by the last session of Congress. The function of this Council is described by President Wilson himself as the "co-ordination of all forms of transportation and the development of means of transportation to meet the military, industrial, and commercial needs of the Nation" and the "collection of complete information as to our present manufacturing and producing facilities adapted to the many-sided uses of modern warfare." For the furtherance of such a purpose the services of the seven men just named by the President should prove of considerable value. But the function of a real Council of National Defense as The Outlook conceives it differs widely from the function of that body created by the last Congress and enthusiastically indorsed by President Wilson. The Outlook believes that the country should possess a Council of National Defense representing the best brains of industry, the army and navy, Congress, and the Federal Executive. The chief duty of this Council would be the co-ordination of our military power with our National policy. (For example, it would, after study, report as to the military power necessary to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.) Such a Council would seek to determine, first, a definition of our international aims and our National needs; and, second, an exact statement of the expenditure for military purposes required by the situation confronting the country. Such a Council would prepare a budget of military expenditure, and submit this budget to Congress with the full sanction of our military authorities and our civil executives. Congress would then determine the amount of money which it had to expend for military purposes, and then would turn this money over to the Council of National Defense, just as a board of directors votes for the expenditure of a specified sum for a specified purpose and then leaves the expenditure of this sum to the care of a responsible executive. Perhaps the present "Council of National Defense" represents a step in this direction. At least its existence will serve to aid the business men of the country in co-operating with the Government in the cause of National security. A MOB-STRIKE In a double sense the strike in the Standard Oil Works at Bayonne, New Jersey, has been a mob-strike. It had no definite organization or union behind it; it was the movement of a mass or mob of workers who wanted better pay, and who broke spontaneously from their work, almost leaderless. One man, when an official urged the strikers to pay no attention to agitators, declared, The only agitators are the empty stomachs and sad hearts of the strikers." Unfortunately the action as well as the organization of the strikers was of the mob order. Their demonstrations were violent, and threats of shooting and burning were followed by criminal assaults and riotous conduct. The |