"MILLIONS FOR GRAPE JUICE, BUT NOT A CENT FOR DEFENCE!" -Cesare in N. Y. Sun

gium, 60; Great Britain, 900; France, 1,400; Germany, 1,400; Italy, 300; Russia, 1,000; Japan, 20. The chief of the Aeronautical Bureau, Captain Bristol, says that 200 air-craft are "urgently needed" for our national defence. Deducting the number of troops necessary to man the coast artillery and for garrisons in the Philippines, Panama Canal, Hawaii, Porto Rico and Alaska, we have, according to Secretary Garrison, only 24,602 men left in the mobile army-"not much more than twice the size of the police force of New York City." We have no reserve army, the existing legislation proving "utterly useless," having produced but 16 men in twenty-four months! According to General Wotherspoon, late the chief of staff of our army, the organized militia has "a reported strength" of 119,000 men, but of these only 42,599 qualified last year as second-class marksmen with the rifle, only 67,000 even

asserts that our field guns are ""as good as any in the world." Admiral Fletcher claims that our battleships are, ship for ship, as good as those in the German navy. Secretary Daniels categorically denies that fleet. maneuvers, and gun practice have been neglected in the last two years, and he tells of surprisingly successful tests with the Matanuska coal in Alaska, which seem to assure an adequate supply of fuel on the Pacific coast. Secretary of War Garrison insists that our army, what there is of it, is in as excellent condition as any similar organization in the world, tho he is in entire agreement with the demand for an increase in its size and for the establishment of a large reserve force, which he terms "absolutely imperative."

No Reason for Excitement, Says the President.

TO THESE assurances, couched in rather general

We shall

terms, may be added that which comes from President Wilson. In his message to Congress last month he said: "Let there be no misconception. The country has been misinformed. We have not been negligent of national defence. We are not unmindful of the great responsibility resting upon us. learn and profit by the lesson of every experience and every new circumstance; and what is needed will be adequately done." The contest that comes out of this agitation does not revolve around any definite proposal as to the size of our army or navy, or as to the size of the coming appropriations for them. It revolves, as we have said, around the proposition for a special commission of inquiry. Against this the administration has set its face, on the ground that it is simply the inauguration of a jingo campaign and that all the information desired is accessible in the reports of department officials and bureau heads, or else can be easily secured by the naval and military committees of Congress. The President devotes nearly a third of his message to the subject. From the first, he says, we have had a clear and settled policy on the subject of military establishments and this is no time to depart from it. We are at peace with all the world. We should be very jealous of our distinction as the champions of peace and concord, especially just now when our reputation. in that respect may bring us soon the opportunity to perform a great service to the world.

"We Shall Not Alter Our Policy of Defence." SPECIALLY, President Wilson goes on to say,

000 who did not drill a total of twenty-four hours.

Generals and Admirals on the Good
Points of Our Armaments.

to make our moral insurance against the spread of the conflagration very certain and definite and adequate

such as a shortage in field and siege artillery, in artillery ammunition, in torpedoes, in motor trucks, etc. Considering that the appropriations for the army and navy have been climbing up until last year they amounted to over $250,000,000, the list of serious defects seems disquieting, to say the least. There are, however, some reassuring features. General E. M. Weaver declares that we have the best coast defence material in the world-if only we had men enough who are trained to handle it, and enough ammunition for it. General Scott, the new chief of staff, testifies that, as compared with the situation two, four or six years ago, the condition of our national defence is "constantly improving." General Crozier, chief of ordnance of the army,

depend, he says, in the future as in the past, not upon a large regular army, nor upon a reserve army, but upon "a citizenry trained and accustomed to arms." It is right to encourage such training and to develop the National Guard; but

"More than this carries with it a reversal of the whole history and character of our policy. More than this, proposed at this time, permit me to say, would mean merely that we had lost our self-possession, that we had been thrown off our balance by a war with which we have nothing to do, whose causes cannot touch us, whose very existence affords us opportunities of friendship and disinterested service which should make us ashamed of any thought of hostility or fearful preparation for trouble. This

is assuredly the opportunity for which a people and a government like ours were raised up, the opportunity not only to speak but actually to embody and exemplify the counsels of peace and amity and the lasting concord which is based on justice and fair and generous dealing."

A "powerful navy" he also advocates as "our proper and natural means of defence"; but who, he asks, shall tell us now what sort of navy to build? The subject, he remarks, in conclusion, is not new and there is no new need to discuss it.

"We shall not alter our attitude toward it because some among us are nervous and excited. We shall easily and sensibly agree upon a policy of defence. The question has not changed its aspects because the times are not normal. Our policy will not be for an occasion. It will be conceived as a permanent and settled thing, which we will pursue at all seasons, without haste and after a fashion perfectly consistent with the peace of the world, the abiding friendship of states, and the unhampered freedom of all with whom we deal."

"Wilsonism At Its Worst."

HE cooling lotion thus applied has not been entirely successful in allaying the fever. The N. Y. Tribune terms the message "Wilsonism at its worst," Wilsonism being, it seems, "the habit of trying to make specious phrases do the work of statesmanship." "The idea," we are told, "that our seeking at this moment to repair our military deficiences would disqualify the United States to act as a mediator in the European conflict is a sheer delusion." It cannot possibly detract from our championship of peace and concord if we examine our present modest means of national defence and satisfy ourselves that the money spent on them is being spent to the best advantage. The N. Y. Sun finds in the message, as it has for that matter found in nearly all of the President's utterances, an "irritating incapacity to face a fact, to deal with things as they are," and a "provoking effort to dismiss ugly realities with a pretty phrase." It finds him "oblivious to all that has happened between July and December, unable to perceive that the courage of Liège could not prevent the catastrophe of Louvain." Was there ever, it asks, a more patent fallacy than this-that the guns in New York harbor must not be supplied with ammunition because that might, in some unapparent fashion, make the United States an unacceptable mediator? Furthermore:

"If the nations of Europe desire peace, desire our assistance in settling their differences, it will be because they have fought as long as they will or can. It will be because they want peace, not because they are looking for a moral or spiritual example or lesson from this country. To assume superior virtue will not contribute to making us more acceptable as mediators, once our mediation is asked. We shall get nowhere, accomplish nothing, serve mankind in no useful way by pretending to be better than those nations who are now fighting for what they believe is the noblest thing in the world."

High Time to Know What Our Defences Are Like.

THE HE same point of view is taken by the N. Y. Times, which is usually found in support of the President's policies. Now and not later, it thinks, is the time to build up our defences, because it would create just now no "international impression" whatever. "On the other hand, if we wait until some cause for hurried action arises, whatever we may then do will be subject to

scrutiny and inquiry." It is time that we all knew, says the Chicago Tribune, not only what sort of a navy we have and what sort of fortresses, but especially what sort of mobile army. Congress does not know, the press does not know, the public does not know. "It is time we all knew and the time to know is now, not after it is too late." It refers with some scorn to the following statement from Senator Kern: "This country will understand that with the close of the present war in Europe even the victor will not be in condition for some time to wage war against the United States. We will have the breathing spell at least to prepare." "The whole history of our unpreparedness, comments the Tribune, "from the war of 1812 down to the occupation of Vera Cruz is illustrated by that remark. Congress always has been sure of a 'breathing spell to prepare'and Congress has spent it in breathing, not preparing. Congress is good at breathing." The Washington Post protests against making this a question of partisan politics. Republicans, it insists, have no right to criticize the Democratic party, which has been in power but two years, for unpreparedness. There is no excuse for delay, it thinks, on the ground that such a movement for adequate defence is partisan. It points with warning finger to the fate of Finland, Belgium, Egypt and Korea. It points also to the plight of Great Britain, "where to-day, through its disregard of the urging of Viscount Wolseley and of Lord Roberts for years, its government is

forced to fill the trenches in northern France with brave but untrained recruits."

What Would Happen to Us in a Real War?

IN THE new National Security League, it is said, there are about as many Democrats as Republicans. Herman Ridder, treasurer of the national Democratic committee, is one who joins loudly in the demand for an immediate investigation. The moment, he thinks, is not only not inopportune but it is peculiarly opportune. "We know to-day what war is. To-morrow we

3

shall have forgotten. We should strike while the iron is hot in our minds." America, says the Montgomery Advertiser, a Democratic paper, has fought more wars in the last forty years than Germany has. We have been successful only because we have done our fighting with weak countries. "What would we do, if, through mistake or misfortune, we should become involved in war with a powerful country like Great Britain, France, or Russia? The Brooklyn Eagle (Dem.) thinks that Congressman Gardner has struck a responsive chord, and public opinion is growing stronger day by day in favor of a searching inquiry. The N. Y. Times uses for the text of an editorial the following quotation from Secretary Bryan: "The President knows that if this country needed a million men, and needed them in a day, the call would go out at sunrise and the sun would go down on a million men in arms. More foolish words, says the Times, were never spoken by mortal man in reply to a serious argument. An army of a million untrained men could not be enrolled, mobilized, armed and made fit for the country's defence in a year. It can not see why the administration should resist inquiry. The public will not be quieted or satisfied by sneers about militarism. Nobody, it goes on to say, wants a great standing army. In a "citizenry trained and accustomed to arms" would be found an army adequate for protection, and in recommending that the President, the Times thinks, has shown that he is really convinced of the justice of the public demand but "won't admit it."

Politicians on Another "Military Spree."

то A drunken man, observes the N. Y. World, the most offensive man in the world is a sober man, which explains to it why the newspapers and politicians who are "on a military spree" are so incensed against the President. "It is not what the President said that irritates them. It is the way he said it. If we were to translate the so-called war section of his message into the vehement vernacular of Roosevelt, most of them would probably agree with all of it." It adds: "A Chief Magistrate who refuses to get excited is worth his weight in radium at a time like this. If there had been a few Woodrow Wilsons in the Governments

of Europe, half the world would not have been plunged into the most devastating war of human history." The World was at first strongly inclined to endorse the Gardner demand for a commission of inquiry; but that demand, it now concludes, begins to look not like the prelude to a sober and scientific inquiry but like the prelude to a new political jingo demonstration, and is more of a campaign against the United States treasury than against any probable foe. "If the issue has been raised merely to cover partisan politics and pocketbook jingoism with a mask of patriotism, it is a manifestation of moral treason to the nation." The Springfield Republican thinks that while, of course, we want our armaments to be as efficient as possible, a popular agitation is the last way to attain that aim. At the moment, it remarks, the whole world is seeing red, but before this war is over it will be seeing blue. Already militarism is on the defensive and feels it; if it cannot stir up an agitation while the war fever lasts, what chance will it have when a sick and sobered world, peace finally restored, begins to count the staggering cost of its debauch?"

A

A Vision of Roosevelt at the Head of a Militarist Revival. REGULAR crusade against the agitation has been conducted by the N. Y. Evening Post, which goes so far as to say that this is the time not to inquire about our preparedness for war but "to refuse to vote a single additional ship and to lead the world toward disarmament by beginning to disarm ourselves." It finds it hard to read the President's message on the subject without a moistening of the eyes. His is "the true American voice," and he it is who "defends us against those of our own citizens who forget the true grandeur of this nation." It quotes the London Telegraph to the effect that if a fleet action is fought between the British and German navies, it may easily result that the United States may find itself the strongest naval power in the world. Surely, says the Post, even our big-navy men might be content, under these circumstances, to wait a few months. It sees in the agitation increasing signs of the activity of Republican and Progressive leaders for partisan purposes, and it sees, in its mind's eye, Mr. Roosevelt shedding his robes of social justice and brandishing his sword at the head of a militarist revival. The real object of all this agitation, says the San Francisco Chronicle, is not to inform Congress but to fire the American heart. To comply with the demands of the militarist party, it asserts, we must resort to compulsory service and vast additions to our taxes such as our people never dreamed of. "Certainly," it says, "we shall have no reason to fear either Europe or Asia for a long time to come."

IF

The Only Real Possibility of
War for America.

F. AS is thus charged, the agitation has a partisan object, it is of interest to note that neither the Republican candidate for President in 1912 nor the candidate for Vice-President is participating in it. Mr. Taft sees less reason just now for such an agitation than at any other time in decades past. He sees, indeed, evidence in some of the utterances of "a mild hysteria." There are, he says, no secrets to be investigated. The chiefs of bureaus have been for years reporting the deficiencies in our armaments. He believes the army should be increased by from 25 to 50 per cent., and there should be an increase also in our coast defences and in the personnel of our navy. He favors at least one and perhaps two more West Points. But there is no reason for any undue excitement or for changing the general policy of the nation. What we ought to do, however, is to remove the only real possibility of war-that is to say, "the wanton, reckless, wicked willingness of a narrow section of the country to gratify racial prejudice and class-hatred by flagrant breaches of treaty rights in the form of state law or by lawless violence." If Congress would at once assume authority and see to it that we are not dragged into international difficulties by such means, that would be quite as effective as increasing our military defences. Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University, looks with far less composure upon the agitation. He would regard it as not only deplorable but "disastrous" if the agitation were to succeed. "For the United States to be swept from her moorings now," he says, in an interview in the N. Y. Evening Post, “on the foolish supposition of an attack by Germany or Japan or England or anybody else, would be not only an act of folly but national suicide.'

5

One of the reasons Mexico keeps on fighting is probably that if it ever settles down to peace it will have to begin paying war bills. Cleveland Plain-Dealer.

Victoriano Huerta says he has no desire to return to Mexico. It is evident that the old boy isn't soused all the time.-Los Angeles Times.

themselves, and in the seizure and occupation of his chief revenue producing port of Vera Cruz, we deliberately drove Huerta out of Mexico, and with equal deliberation brought in Carranza and Villa in the expectation that they would compose the troubles of unfortunate Mexico."

Mr. Roosevelt fires a broadside at the administration for its way of handling the Mexican situation. He finds "an unbroken course of more or less furtive meddling in the internal affairs of Mexico, carried to a pitch which imposes on this nation a grave responsi-bility for the wrongdoing of the victorious factions." The defense of our course, that the President has kept us out of war with Mexico, he scouts as futile. On the contrary, we are told, he plunged us into war when our troops were sent to Vera Cruz. It was “a peculiarly unwise, ignoble and inefficient war," but it was war none the less, in which we seized the leading seaport city of another country, sacrificing a score of American and a hundred or so of Mexican lives, retained the city for months, and then abandoned it without attaining the object for which it was seized. It was the clear duty of President Wilson, Mr. Roosevelt insists, to accept Huerta as the actual President of Mexico. Unless he was ready to establish a protectorate and insure peace, he had no business to pass judgment upon the method of Huerta's selection. Once having made up his mind not to recognize Huerta, he should have notified foreign powers of his intention in time to prevent contrary action by them.

earthquakes the attention of the world has been directed but incidentally toward the situation in Mexico. Even in our recent elections that topic played but a small part. The evacuation of Vera Cruz on November 23d by the American troops has seemed to bring to a head the gathering discontent, and something like a storm of criticism has since broken upon the White House. It is far from being a cyclone, but it is no summer zephyr either. One had to hunt with some diligence in the journals of the country last month to find any champions of our Mexican policy in its entirety. The revolutionary aspects of the Mexican buzz-saw were never more in evidence than they have been in the last few months, while our soldiers have been occupying themselves with cleaning up Vera Cruz, at an expense estimated at about $10,000,000. Huerta fled July 15th. He was succeeded by General Carbajal, who fled in his turn August 15th. He was in due time succeeded by General Carranza, who joined in the flight from Mexico City and established his executive offices in a lighthouse in Vera Cruz harbor. Generals Blanco, Zapata and Villa in succession assumed charge of Mexico City and then General Gutierrez appeared as President. At the latest accounts three revolutionary movements are contesting for mastery-one under Carranza, one under Salazar, and one in charge of Villa and Zapata, with Gutierrez as a figurehead. A fourth, under General Gonzales, has been reported, but the report has been denied. The total tally of Presidents, therefore, in the last three and one-half years, is sixDiaz (who left the capital May 25, 1911), Madero (who was killed February 20, 1913), Huerta (exit July 15, 1914), Carbajal, Carranza and Gutierrez. We, in the meantime, have incurred an expense of nearly ten million dollars in the occupation of Vera Cruz, and over $800,000 in taking care of refugees who have fled over our southern border. And by the middle of last month the bullets were again whizzing over the boundary line at Naco, where rival Mexican armies under Maytorena and Hill were in contest. It is not our buzz-saw, but we can't seem to get away from it.

MEXICON

اقاااا

I Don't Know Where I'm Going, But I Must Be Nearly There. -Sykes in Philadelphia Ledger