THOMAS MOTT OSBORNE: A PRACTICAL PRISON IDEALIST A FORTRESS-CATHEDRAL OF SOUTHERN FRANCE BY HENRY HOYT MOORE FEEDING WILD BIRDS BY ERNEST HAROLD BAYNES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1914 PRICE: TEN CENTS 287 FOURTH AVENUE, NEW YORK The Outlook DECEMBER 23, 1914 LYMAN ABBOTT, Editor-in-Chief HAMILTON W. MABIE, Associate Editor R. D. TOWNSEND, Managing Editor THE STORY OF THE WAR As the war continues month after month its final outcome becomes more evidently a question of endurance. Interest in the military action of the nations involved tends to center in their relative ability to meet the appalling costs in men, money, and munitions. Americans are therefore giving more and more thought to the social, political, economic, and moral forces involved; for these forces at the close of actual fighting are likely to change greatly the face of Europe. Mr. Arthur Bullard, who was The Outlook's war correspondent in the field during the Balkan War, and who since the outbreak of the European war has written weekly for The Outlook its story as our "war correspondent at home," will sail for Europe about the first of January to study these larger problems at close range. From time to time during 1915 he will contribute to The Outlook a series of articles on the war as it looks to the people actually concerned, giving especial attention to its sociological, economic, and political phases. The detailed story of events will be continued in these pages by Mr. George Kennan and Mr. Gregory Mason, of the Outlook staff. Mr. Mason, whose articles on Mexico will be recalled with interest by our readers, visited that unhappy country last spring as The Outlook's special representative. He met and interviewed Generals Villa and Carranza, was part of the time on the firing line, and for a period of several days was so cut off from communication that there was considerable anxiety among his friends lest his life might have been lost in the conflict. His journalistic experience as well as his experience in Mexico entitle our readers to expect from his weekly report and interpretation of the progress of the military conflict in Europe a narrative which may be depended upon for its intelligence, accuracy, and sense of proportion. Of Mr. Kennan's special qualifications it is hardly necessary for us to speak. Since his remarkable experience in Russia and Siberia in 1865 and 1885 he has become the foremost living American authority on Russian affairs. His two books "Tent Life in Siberia" and "Siberia and the Exile System" are permanent contributions of importance to the literature of Russian development in modern times. He speaks and reads Russian and is in constant and intimate communication with Russian scholars and patriots. The role of Russia in the European war grows daily of more importance, and if the Allies are ultimately victorious Russia will be an important factor, perhaps the most perplexing factor, in the settlement of terms of peace. Mr. Kennan's articles will be chiefly devoted to an interpretation of Russia's action, aims, and policy; and to comments on events that are likely to affect her power, her form of government, and her relations to other European states. Mr. Kennan was the special war correspondent of The Outlook in Cuba during the Spanish War and in Japan and Manchuria and on the firing line before Port Arthur during the RussoJapanese War. We do not hesitate to express satisfaction that as the war has grown in magnitude as a world problem The Outlook has been able to enlarge its scope of treatment. With Mr. Bullard in Europe and with Mr. Kennan and Mr. Mason at home, we shall be enabled during 1915 to give our readers an interpretation of the war which will be noteworthy for fullness, breadth, accuracy, and human interest. The Story of the War for this issue will be found on page 911. TWO REPORTS THE WEEK Within the past few days the official reports of the Secretaries of the Army and Navy have been laid before the President and the public at large. In recording the general impression which any careful reader will receive from a perusal of these two documents it is not necessary to discuss in detail every statement they contain to appraise them at their true worth. One report presents to the reader the picture of a Secretary who understands the function of and the necessity for the Department over which he presides. The other portrays a Secretary whose attention is fixed upon the by-products rather than the main purpose of his Department, upon the justification of his own views rather than upon the co-ordination and presentation, as part of a definite National policy, of the opinions of the experts under his command. As may have already been surmised, the latter portion of this sentence does not refer to Secretary Garrison. Aside from its fundamental defects, Secretary Daniels's report is open to criticism on still another score, for in his general introduction the Secretary presents the opinions of those opposed to his views in a form which they would not accept. Department feels that it is upon safe ground in looking to the Board to prescribe the character of the ships to be constructed." Now it happens that the policy laid down by the General Board is vitally dependent upon other factors than the type and character of the ships recommended for construction. In 1903, after a careful consideration of our National policies and interests, the General Board of the navy laid down a policy of construction based upon the authorization of two battle-ships a year, which in 1919 would have given us a navy of forty-eight capital ships and their necessary auxiliaries. Congress has so far neglected this recommendation that the construction programme is at present some ten battle-ships in arrears. In view of this consideration, the General Board has for the past two years recommended the construction of four capital ships, not as part of a normal building programme, but to make up the losses sustained from the action of previous Congresses. With present deficiencies in mind, the General Board recommended this year the construction of four battle-ships, sixteen torpedo-boat destroyers, three fleet submarines, sixteen coast submarines, four scout cruisers, four gunboats, two oil fuel ships, one destroyer tender, one submarine tender, one transport, one hospital ship, one supply ship, and the appropriation of five million dollars for the naval aeroplane service. Secretary Daniels, in cutting down this recommendation to a minimum of two dreadnoughts, six destroyers, eight submarines, one gunboat, and one oiler, has no justification for stating that his programme in any way "follows the recommendation of the General Board." He is in the position of a city manager who, after calling upon a commission of engineering experts to outline a proposed water system adequate for a city's needs, should issue a statement saying that the opinion of these experts "is entitled to great weight" and would in general be followed, but that he had decided to cut down the size of the proposed aqueduct one-half. In another instance, Secretary Daniels similarly seems to misunderstand the findings of the General Board. The General Board this year recommends that an adequate personnel be provided by Congressional legislation fully to man all the effective ships in the navy. In reply to this recommendation Secretary Daniels says: "By wisely utilizing the present enlisted personnel all ships of the classes named can be maintained in full commission without addition to the present enlistment, and therefore no legislation is needed. This is clearly shown in a report by the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation." Reference to that report, however, serves only to confirm the opinion of the General Board. While, according to the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, the enlisted personnel is adequate for the present year (and no longer), his report shows a considerable shortage in officers, which cannot be made good without following up the recommendation of the General Board. Surely Secretary Daniels must consider the officers in the navy as a somewhat vital factor in its efficiency! SECRETARY GARRISON In happy contrast to the indirection of Secretary Daniels's report on the navy is the straightforwardness of the report prepared by Secretary Garrison on the army. It is a report which, both because of its specific recommendations and its presentation of general principles, tempts to lengthy quotation. Unlike the Secretary of the Navy, Secretary Garrison permits the reports of the various heads of bureaus in the War Department to speak largely for themselves without editorial interpretation. He notes, however, among other items of particular interest, that during the past year "the health of the army has been exceptionally good. The last year," he says, "has afforded the lowest recorded non-effective rate in the history of the army; a reduction of nearly twenty per cent in non-efficiency from sickness and injury has resulted. There were only four cases of typhoid fever in the army, 895* including the Philippine Scouts. Two of these were cases of recruits of four or five days' service, respectively, who had not been immunized. Venereal diseases have decreased about twenty-five per cent. The rate for alcoholism is the lowest since 1873. The health of troops in camps over a long period of time has been extraordinarily good on account of the high efficiency of camp sanitation." He announces that "the system of disciplinary companies which has been established bids fair to be very successful;" and notes that "a large part of the army has been occupied in actual field service at Galveston, Vera Cruz, all along the Mexican border, and in Colorado and Arkansas. The fact that this duty was everywhere done in an exceptional manner and without untoward incident," notes Secretary Garrison, "is gratifying in the highest degree and deserves recognition as difficult service extremely well rendered. . . . The Student Camps were very successful and bid fair to be more so, and undoubtedly can and should be developed into a most valuable assistance." SECRETARY GARRISON ON AMERICAN MILITARY PROBLEMS After a brief discussion of the engineering work under the control of his Department and of the organization of the Government of Porto Rico and the Canal Zone, the Secretary proceeds to a discussion of the problems confronting America as seen in the light of the European war. He says: It is, of course, not necessary to dwell on the blessings of peace and the horrors of war. . . But peace and the other states of being just mentioned are not always or even often solely within one's control. Those who are thoughtful and have courage face the facts of life, take lessons from experience, and strive by wise conduct to attain the desirable things, and by prevision and precaution to protect and defend them when obtained. . . . In the early history of our Nation there was a natural, almost inevitable, abhorrence of military force, because it connoted military despotism. Most, if not all, of the early settlers in this country came from nations where a few powerful persons tyrannically imposed their will upon the people by means of military power.... Of course all this has long since passed into history. No reasonable person in this country to-day has the slightest shadow of fear of military despotism, nor of any interference whatever by military force in the conduct of civil affairs. The military and the civil are |
