網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

POLITICAL MIRACLES IN CALIFORNIA

commission which had been created during the Johnson régime would be abolished. They charged the Johnson administration with reckless extravagance. When Mr. Hughes made his trip to California, these leaders of the "regulars" did all they could, not only to make the Progressives feel that they were outsiders, but also to put into the background the liberal element in their own party. The Old Guard attempted to capitalize Mr. Hughes's visit and to make it useful for their own return to power.

Mr. Chester H. Rowell, one of the foremost Progressives in the country, and a Progressive member of the National Republican Campaign Committee, tried to bring about cooperation between all the Progressives and all the Republicans; but his efforts met with no response on the part of the Republican "regulars." Not a single Progressive presided at a Hughes meeting. This was all done with the effort to eliminate Governor Johnson as the candidate for the United States Senatorship. The Old Guard were not thinking of Mr. Hughes, but of their own political rehabilitation. In spite of the fact that Mr. Hughes was a progressive before there was any Progressive party, he was made to appear in California as the representative of the anti-progressives. Though

no Governor of an Eastern State has approached so nearly what Governor Johnson has done in California as Mr. Hughes during his Governorship in New York, there was nothing to indicate in Mr. Hughes's visit that he was of the same political faith as Governor Johnson. The Old Guard, aside from allowing the names of some Progressives to appear as vice-presidents in the Hughes meetings, did nothing to secure the support of the Progressives and the liberal Republicans, and much to alienate it. As a result, the joy of the Old Guard was unconfined.

Then came the primaries, and Governor Johnson, flouted by the leaders of the Republican party, himself a Progressive, was victor, and became, by command of the voters of the State, not only the Progressive but also the Republican candidate for the Senatorship. His majority in the Republican primary was just over fifteen thousand.

As a consequence, the Republicans and the Progressives are now united in California under Progressive leadership. How thoroughly established that leadership is may be indicated by the statement that Mr. Rowell, who had vainly attempted before the prima

413

ries to establish co-operation between the Progressives and Republicans in the support of Mr. Hughes, is now Republican State Chairman. Mr. Rowell's political history is typical of the State, and in some respects unique in the records of American politics. Four years ago he served as a member of the sub-committee of nine that wrote the Republican National platform, and a few weeks later served on the sub-committee that wrote the Progressive National platform. He and Dean Lewis, of Pennsylvania, who served on those two committees, are probably the only persons who ever participated in the writing of the National platforms of two principal parties in the same year. This year he has served simultaneously as Progressive National committeeman from California, as member of the Progressive National Executive Committee, and, though all the time registered as a Progressive, member of the Republican National Campaign Committee. Just before the first of October he was registered as a Republican, and was immediately thereafter elected Chairman of the Republican State Committee. As he himself has put it, "it was like the Methodist Church admitting a convert on probation, and electing him bishop the next day."

Under these circumstances, it can be readily seen that almost anything-except the defeat of Governor Johnson-can happen in California.

In view of the disappointment felt by Progressives over what one California Progressive calls "Mr. Hughes's unbenevolent neutrality," the electoral vote of California is somewhat in doubt. California might be ordinarily termed normally a Republican State. California, however, is doubtful today because there are many independent voters—either confessing no party allegiance or holding party attachment lightly-who feel that President Wilson has had a hard time of it, and has done well to keep the country out of war, and they intend to vote for him. That is as deeply as they think and is the limit of their vision. Organized labor is reputed to be for President Wilson, and must be considered. Many of the women of California are for Wilson, also because he has kept the country out of war, and because he has given the country as well some advanced legislation which they favored, and has managed to create such uncertainty as to his attitude toward equal suffrage that they do not see much difference between

the President's attitude and that of Mr. Hughes.

That was the situation, at least up to the time of the State Convention, held in September. In California those nominated as candidates for the Legislature, with elected delegates representing the hold-over Senators, who are usually the Senators themselves, constitute the membership of the Convention. Five conventions were held, one for each party. The Republican Convention was completely controlled by the liberal wing of the party. Governor Johnson's administration was indorsed, and the pledge was made that there would be no backward step in the matter of humanitarian legislation and the reforms wrought by his administration. Hughes and Fairbanks were indorsed, of

course, and a number of old-line Republicans were chosen as Presidential electors, including Mr. Booth, whom Governor Johnson had defeated for the Senatorial nomination. Governor Johnson addressed the Convention, and received a remarkably hearty greeting. He pledged his support of Mr. Hughes in a way that aroused the enthusiasm of the Hughes supporters. The party, outwardly at least, is united. This remarkable Convention, bringing the party under liberal control, will do much to help the cause of Mr. Hughes. The Republicans are in a large majority in California on registration, and it would seem that they should be successful on election day. But even those who believe that the State will be carried by Hughes admit that the vote is likely to be close.

THE U-53 AND THE MIDDLE WEST

W

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE

'HAT may be described as " polite interest" was taken by the Middle West in the news of the German submarine operations in American waters. At least as much attention was given by Middle Western newspapers to collateral issues growing out of the appearance of the U-53 as to the discussion of the immediate consequences of the raid. Doubtless this was largely due to the fact that a distance of more than a thousand miles from the scene of possible U-boat operations gives the Middle West a greater sense of detachment than is possible for the Atlantic coast cities.

West of Chicago there was hardly a reference to the essential inhumanity of submarine warfare. The Chicago "Evening Post" referred to this aspect of the affair. But a fairly careful reading of a large number of Middle Western newspapers failed to disclose similar references elsewhere. The St. Paul "Pioneer Press" protested that it was "highly improbable that the official determination that the marauding German submarine is within her belligerent rights thus far will serve to allay the storm which is sweeping over the United States as information comes of the destruction of commerce and the endangering of American lives." The average American, it added, "will ignore all questions of law and rush into a heated re

sentment of this bringing of the war into our territorial waters."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In general, however, the protests were much milder. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch insisted that German submarines have as much right to operate near our shores as British and French war-vessels have. So long as the submarines act in accord with international law and respect our rights on the sea, we cannot complain." The "GlobeDemocrat," of the same city, remarked that "there seems to be no present reason for the United States to be excited over the outburst of submarine warfare.” But the danger of complications was generally recognized. The Kansas City " Star " noted that the raids emphasized the fact that the submarine controversy is far from settled, and the Topeka "Capital" said: "Americans will breathe easier if they'get' the U-53 or it is heard from returning home or in other waters than this side of the Atlantic." "Perhaps the most promising thing to do now," said the Sioux City Journal," "is to pray that the naval submarines and the merchant submarines alike will keep away from our waters."

One reason for the coolness with which the matter was discussed was the prevalent feeling that Germany could not fight effectively so far from home. Typical of widespread

1916

THE U-53 AND THE MIDDLE WEST

comments of this sort was that of the Lincoln (Nebraska)" State Journal," which said:

Like the previous sensational naval achievements of the Germans, the material result is comparatively slight. The commerce raiders were finally sunk or driven to port. All the Deutschlands Germany can build cannot carry goods enough to affect the blockade greatly. Submarine operations on the Atlantic coast are not economical war. The ships passing in and out of American ports pass also in and out of European ports. There they are equally open to attack by submarines, which in that case need be only a few hundred miles from home. moral effect, the audacity of the deed, is the main accomplishment in these attacks on the American side. The German navy cannot strike a body blow. It must content itself with dealing bold and unexpected pin-pricks to prove how brilliant the Germans could be on the sea if only they had the chance.

The

As has been said, numerous lessons were drawn from the German operations. In view of the proximity of the election, there was more or less discussion of the raids in connection with the Wilson Administration's foreign policy. For instance, the “Oklahoman,' of Oklahoma City, a Democratic newspaper, thanked God that in these parlous times "a man tried by the fire of experience" was at the head of the Government. The Topeka "Capital," owned by Governor Capper, of Kansas, which is solicitous lest the United States become militaristic, made the inference that a fleet of submarines could safeguard the country from attack. "If the modern U-boats," it said, "now developed to a size of two hundred feet in length, equipped with powerful torpedoes, are able to travel a month's or more distance from their base and sink merchantmen, what chance would a fleet of merchantmen or transports carrying an army have of navigating the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean and landing on a hostile shore, with fleets of defending U-boats hunting for them on the way and waiting for them at their points of arrival? For defense the U-boat in adequate numbers is so formidable that alone, and not as a mere arm of a high-grade navy, it could defend a coast pretty effectively from an invading army that must be transported across the seas. An army attempting to attack overseas would be decimated before it ever reached land.”

But perhaps the view most commonly

415

emphasized was that a blow had been given the theory of the ocean as a barrier against foreign attack. Said the " Herald-Republican," of Salt Lake City (Utah):

Captain Hans Rose and the little vessel he commands have given the final blow to the theory of "splendid isolation " so long urged by a certain class of Americans as rendering unnecessary any preparations for National defense. It may be assumed that what one U-boat has been able to do with ease others can accom. plish without difficulty. When the deadliest weapon ever invented for naval warfare can reach American shores, the day when thousands of miles of tossing waters form a barrier to invasion would seem to have passed.

"To this Nation," the "Rocky Mountain News," of Denver (Colorado), said, "it was notice in letters of red that the Atlantic Ocean is no longer such a safeguard as was imagined; that we are, for good or bad, in very close contact with Europe, and not so very far removed from the Asiatic shores of the Pacific Ocean."

It may fairly be said that the Middle West has never found the war so vital a matter as it has been to the Eastern States. The Middle West is not in such close touch with Europe or European affairs. To the farmer of the prairie European problems seem remote. He still maintains much of the traditional isolation of the Nation. The interdependence of nations is more or less of an empty phrase to him. In this sort of an atmosphere the peace plans of Mr. Bryan and Mr. Ford have been peculiarly effective. They have appealed to Middle Western idealism, and have had the enormous additional advantage of not cutting across Middle Western economic prosperity. Thus it comes to appear both idealistic and materially profitable to keep out of any risk of war. War," runs the argument, "is a horrible thing, and as needless as it is horrible. Thank God, we are not as these mad Europeans, in whose quarrel we have no part!" It is this frame of mind that has given especial force in the Middle West to the campaign argument that President Wilson has "kept the country out of war," and that always has tended to take the edge off the acuteness of feeling on issues arising from submarine warfare.

H. J. HASKELL.

The Kansas City "Star," Kansas City, Missouri.

ENGLAND AND THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY

BY ARTHUR BULLARD

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE

S the great struggle drags on, it becomes more and more evident

that the most important factor in determining the form and spirit of the new Europe to follow the war will be the internal politics of the British Isles.

A few months ago a well-known Englishman said: "We call this a war of liberation. But it is blind folly not to realize that it may be quite the opposite if we Liberals are not strong enough to make and keep it liberal." And his tone indicated that he was distressfully uncertain as to which of the great political parties would rule Great Britain after the war.

No better description of the very seriousand very perplexed-frame of mind of the British Liberals has appeared than Mr. Wells's new novel, "Mr. Britling Sees It Through." After the war, as before it, all the hopeful, progressive elements of English life will have to struggle against the same bitter reactionary party which had brought Ireland to the verge of civil war.

The tide of battle has now definitely set in against the Central Empires. Inevitably we begin to speculate over the plans which the Entente Powers are forming for the reorganization of Europe. The determining element in all forecasts must be one's guess at the outcome of the political struggle in the British Parliament.

The general policies of the Entente will be determined by the three original partners. Their lesser and later-allies will be mainly occupied in pressing their private claims. In its broad lines the new map of Europe will be drawn by France, Russia, and Great Britain.

We can foretell with considerable certainty the attitude of the French. They did not enter the war in hope of gain. They expect to reconquer Alsace-Lorraine, to secure a protectorate in Syria, and to receive some colonial advantages in Africa. But they would not have gone to war for any nor all of these gains. They wanted to be let alone. Their prime interest in the reorganizationlike ours will be for a régime of justice and peace.

The Republic, in its long fight with the

clerico-royalist reaction, has definitely won. France is liberal. In the councils of Europe-in all broad issues-her influence will be modern, humane, and progressive.

The position of Russia will almost certainly be the opposite. Even the most optimistic believers in the Russian revolution -of whom I am one-must realize that the Foreign Office is ever the last stronghold of the reaction. For some months after the war the Russian Liberals will be more than busy consolidating and expanding their victories in internal politics. These gains have been real. They are full of promise for the future. But in all probability the foreign affairs of the Empire for some time to come will be left in the hands of the old diplomatic corps, bred from and trained under the ancien régime.

However, the Czar will be faced by a very pressing need for money. Even if the Germans have real money to lend after the warwhich is doubtful-he would hardly dare to make friends with the Kaiser immediately after hostilities. He will be dependent on his two western banking allies.

The Russian diplomats at the peace congress will probably be reactionary by instinct and tradition, but their votes will be influenced by their master's urgent need of conciliating those who can lend him money.

So Great Britain will hold the balance of power. Her delegates will do as they are told. If the King's Cabinet is Liberal, Great Britain will side with France, and together they will find it easy to impose progressive policies on their great ally. But if the Tory Imperialists hold the Government at Westminster, they will strike hands with the Russians and outvote the French.

The situation of Poland offers a notable example. It is a very thorny problem. But one fact is obvious. It will be most distasteful for the Czar to grant liberties to the Poles which he refuses to his subjects of Russian blood. If the Government of Petrograd is given a free hand in this matter, the Poles are doomed to new disappointments.

The French would like to see a reconstituted Poland, partly because they cherish a

THE NATIONS AT WAR

traditional friendship for the Poles, partly because they really believe in the theory of the rights of nations. But France, singlehanded, will not be able to control the issue. The Poles themselves are well aware that their fate in the event of German defeat will be determined at London, not at Petrograd. If the British delegates join with the French in urging the Czar to keep his promise, he will do it.

But the British delegates cannot insist on Russia being more liberal to the Poles than their own Government is to Ireland. If Sir Edward Carson and Lord Lansdowne and the other Englishmen who believe in suppressing with bayonets the unrest of the Irish Catholics are in power, they will hardly raise their voices in behalf of the oppressed Catholics of Poland.

In a thousand ways, if the British and French diplomats work together, consciously using the great argument of their lending power, they can help in the stupendous task of liberalizing Russia. But if the Tories are in power and try to "cash in" on one-half the Imperialistic projects they freely discuss. in their papers, they will support their own caste the Czar and his Court. There will be small hope for the Poles and as little for the Liberals of Russia.

In a like manner, the fate of the Balkans depends on Great Britain. That unhappy peninsula has long been the "sore spot of Europe." Infection, spreading from this center, has set half the world at war. And Europe will not be cured there will be no definite end to war-till a decent solution is found for the problem of the Near East. Nowhere is highminded, far-sighted statesmanship so desperately needed. There are in Great Britain many men eminently fitted for the work of reorganization and conciliation. Whether or not they will be in a position to utilize their knowledge depends on the hazards of party politics at Westminster.

The influence of Great Britain, for or against the future peace of the world, will be even more obviously paramount in the much-discussed matter of the economic "War after the War." At present there are two quite distinct meanings attached to this phrase.

It is very generally believed in the other nations of Europe that German industrial competition has been “unfair." It is charged that the German Government has used on a colossal scale the methods of driving indus

417

trial rivals out of business which in a smaller way have furnished the subject-matter of all our anti-trust legislation at home.

The lens-grinding industry of France is often cited as a concrete example. A generation ago all the best lenses for microscopes, field-glasses, and telescopes were made in France. It is charged that the German Government by excessive subsidies not only encouraged German firms to enter the field, but enabled them to sell below cost in the French market till the French industry was killed. Even the French army was buying its field-glasses from Germany. And during the war it has been necessary for the French to recreate the industry.

This is the essence of what is called "dumping." Even before the war considerable experiment had been made in "antidumping" legislation. Perhaps the Canadian law was the most effective. It is extremely probable that all the nations of the world will pass such defensive tariffs after the war.

Direct government subsidies to give home industries unfair advantages in foreign trade are in absolute opposition to the idea of free trade. And even the most doctrinaire free-trader could hardly object to legislation which made it impossible to dump goods in a foreign market at a price below that current at home.

But there is another and more disquieting meaning attached to the "War after the War." On the basis of the widespread sentiment in favor of defensive tariffs against unfair competition, influential politicians in all the Entente nations are preaching a policy of economic vengeance, a programme intended to smother the industry of the Central Empires by frankly vindictive customs walls. These ideas are advocated by those who are anxious to be freed from all competitionfair as well as foul-and who are willing to use to this end foul means as well as fair.

Here again the crux of the whole matter lies in British politics. The Liberals of England have led the world in the evolution towards free exchange of commodities. A group in favor of an Imperial Zollverein had grown to dominance in the Unionist party. Immediately before the war this was one of the "issues" of British politics. It is beyond doubt that all this agitation in favor of antidumping laws has greatly strengthened the Tory position.

France, Russia, and the other Entente allies were already high tariff countries before

« 上一頁繼續 »