ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Deputies, a co-defendant, and now under arrest in Italy, was also sentenced to death. The conviction of Cavalini is certainly ominous as to the fate of ex-Premier Caillaux, whose relations with Cavalini, it is alleged, have been very close. Another co-defendant, Darius Porchère, an accountant, business agent, and intermediary, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

Bolo's propaganda, now known throughout the world as "Boloism"-a word quickly acclimatized-consisted in buying interests in newspapers or founding new publications with money supplied by Germany. How much it took to "float" Bolo is not known, we suppose. But at least $2,500,000 has been located. The greater part of this was transferred from Berlin to Paris by way of New York. As a result of the discovery of this manipulation the New York authorities were able to obtain information which they forwarded to Paris.

Bolo's trial was as sensational as even sensation-loving Paris would wish. Bolo's two wives were on the stand, as was M. Panon, Bolo's partner in various undertakings in Marseilles. Bolo had swindled Panon out of 100,000 francs and disappeared with Madame Panon, leaving her husband to settle debts of 50,000 francs. Extravagant statements which reminded one of Tartarin also marked the trial, as, for instance, the fanciful allegation that Bolo had prevailed upon Mr. J. P. Morgan to subscribe for $12,000,000 of the capital for a bank to be established in Cuba-certainly evidence of a fertile imagination on the part of the witness; and the testimony to the effect that articles praising Mr. W. R. Hearst had repeatedly been taken to Senator Humbert's paper, the "Journal," in which Bolo had bought an interest.

But the actual facts were clear cut, and conviction was inevitable. The handsome, plausible Levantine-Frenchman went to pieces in the trial. As he said of himself: "The thin veneer of cultured refinement was promptly rubbed off and I, Bolo, stood out unscrupulous and vulgar.

[ocr errors]

But France has not gone to pieces. Persons who do not know the French may think them merely pleasure-loving, mercurial, volatile, if not decadent. Persons who do know the French are glad that this image has now been replaced in the minds of others by the real French-a thrifty, virile, prompt, precise, relentless folk when it comes to elemental matters. This people has shown itself stern to foes abroad. It is showing itself equally stern to traitors at home.

JOFFRE AN IMMORTAL

Marshal Joffre will stand "under the Cupola." So the French say when a man is elected to the French Academy, and on February 14 Joffre was so elected.

The "Cupola" is a dome-covered and somewhat clumsy but not unimpressive structure, situated on the left bank of the Seine, opposite the Louvre on the right bank. Visitors to Paris will remember the façade on this dome-crowned edifice as shaped like a crescent. It is the Palais de l'Institut. The highest ambition of every literary and scientific Frenchman is to be "Membre de l'Institut." The Palais houses five academies, namely: the Académie Française, the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, the Académie des Sciences, the Académie des Beaux-Arts, and the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques. Each of these has forty members except the Académie des Sciences, which has sixty-six. Each member receives a yearly salary of $240. While the Académie des Inscriptions is chiefly devoted to the study of the ancient languages and to archaological research, while the Académie des Sciences cultivates the study of mathematics and natural science, while the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques exists for the study of philosophy, history, and political economy, and while the Académie des Beaux-Arts promotes painting, sculpture, architecture, and music, the Académie Française is mainly occupied with the French language.

It may seem surprising that a soldier, no matter how distinguished, should aspire to distinction in a selected assemblage of literary men. The truth is that those men have always aspired to have among them such a soldier. One of the Academicians, M. Alfred Capus, recently remarked in the Paris newspaper "Excelsior" concerning Joffre, "His election is certain in

advance." M. Capus was perhaps thinking of what Renan said in 1885 concerning a somewhat similar candidacy, as quoted in the "Excelsior:" "The person who is sure to become one of us is the general who will bring victory back again to us. We would nominate him by acclamation!"

Marshal Joffre is the seventh Marshal of France to be elected to the Academy. The first was Marshal Villars, elected in 1714; then followed Marshal d'Estrée, Marshal de Richelieu, Marshal de Belle-Isle, Marshal de Beauvau, and Marshal de Duras. As the last named was elected in 1775, a long period of time has thus elapsed "between Marshals."

The French like to poke fun at their great men, and the Academicians have become known as "Immortals."

CONDITIONS IN HOLLAND

According to the New York "World," travelers who have been in Germany recently report that there is increasing privation in Germany; but, what is still more important for the time being, that the people of Holland are threatened with starvation. More than one of the travelers quoted attributed the danger of starvation in Holland to the embargoes insisted upon by the United States. As we have already told our readers, the United States has taken steps to prevent food from this country going through neutral countries into Germany. In the process of doing this it has unquestionably made it difficult for Holland and other neutral countries to get goods that they need from Germany, because Germany will not send her goods to these neutral countries unless the neutral countries send to Germany in return goods which they have got from America and other enemies of Germany.

As a consequence, Holland is in great difficulty, and one of the purposes of the newly arrived Minister to America from Holland, Dr. Philips, is to bring about such an understanding with the United States that the Dutch may be able to get the food that they need. Several of the travelers quoted declared that the present situation, if continued, would drive Holland into the war on Germany's side. There is no way, they said, by from Rumania, and Holland can get it through Rumania only by which Holland can get food, if we cut off our supplies, except permission of Germany. She will be able to get that permission only by becoming Germany's associate in the war.

Pro-Ally as most of the Dutch are, it is said that they cannot much longer endure the physical suffering consequent upon their maintenance of neutrality unless the Allies see to their relief. This testimony, of course, is not conclusive, and is at best only hearsay; but certainly we do not want deliberately to use terrorism or constraint upon any neutral country or hamper its freedom of action in any way, except as the safety of the cause for which we are fighting and the rights of ourselves and our allies as belligerents bring on others incidental and unavoidable hardship. The people of Holland surely must understand that we cannot afford to send food and other supplies through their country to our enemy.

THE SHIP-BUILDERS' STRIKE

[ocr errors]

What has been called in the daily newspapers "the shipbuilders' strike was really the strike of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. But when that strike was threatened it was generally regarded as only the overture to a still more widespread strike among the mechanics in steel ship building. The strike of the ship carpenters and joiners was ostensibly over the question of wages. But it also involved, as all labor strikes do in one form or another, the question of a recognition of the unions and as far as possible the establishment of the "closed shop." Although shipyard wages are now higher than they ever have been before, it was claimed by the men that the prevailing increase in the East was not as great as on the Pacific coast, and, moreover, was not sufficient to meet the greatly augmented cost of living. The Shipping Board is now engaged in the problem of establishing a National shipyard wage, standardized for the entire country, which shall be acceptable both to the Government and the workmen.

The strike of the ship carpenters and joiners was abruptly

brought to an end last week by a message from President Wilson to their leader, William L. Hutcheson, in which the President stated with his characteristic felicity of expression the fundamental issue at stake:

I feel it to be my duty to call your attention to the fact that the strike of the carpenters in the shipyards is in marked and painful contrast to the action of labor in other trades and places. Ships are absolutely necessary for the winning of the war. No one can strike a deadlier blow at the safety of the Nation and of its forces on the other side than by interfering with or obstructing the ship-building programme.

All the other unions engaged in this indispensable work have agreed to abide by the decisions of the Ship-Building Wage Adjustment Board. That Board has dealt fairly and liberally with all who have resorted to it. I must say to you very frankly that it is your duty to leave to it the solution of your present difficulties with your employers and to advise the men whom you represent to return at once to work pending the decision. No body of men have the moral right, in the present circumstances of the Nation, to strike until every method of adjustment has been tried to the limit. If you do not act upon this principle, you are undoubtedly giving aid and comfort to the enemy, whatever may be your own conscious purpose.

I do not see that anything will be gained by my seeing you personally until you have accepted and acted upon that principle. It is the duty of the Government to see that the best possible conditions of labor are maintained, as it is also its duty to see to it that there is no lawless and conscienceless profiteering, and that duty the Government has accepted and will perform. Will you co-operate or will you obstruct?

No better statement could be made of the paramount presentday duty of every American citizen from the President down to the youngest office boy. Every American must do his utmost to help win this war. While questions of domestic economy, National efficiency, and individual justice may be discussed, they must be discussed in such a way as to aid and not to interfere with victory. A-man-who strikes at a time of National emergency simply because he sees a chance selfishly to increase his income, whether he be a profiteer or a day laborer, is really an enemy to his country. That this is recognized by many of the ship carpenters themselves is indicated by the fact that at least in one shipyard of which we know many of the men not

only refused to go out but themselves posted up placards urging their fellow-workers to "build ships and beat the Germans. Even before the President's intervention the number of workers who actually went out on strike was much less than some of the sensational accounts indicated.

THE MOONEY CASE: AN APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT

convict. When Mrs. Mooney and Israel Weinberg were tried for the same offense as Mooney, but without the Oxman evidence, they were acquitted. The other alleged accomplice, Warren Billings, had been convicted, and, like Mooney, is under

sentence.

The labor leaders and Socialists in San Francisco aver that a plot existed to make organized labor bear the infamy of murder and disloyalty; justly or unjustly, this feeling grew passionately, and meetings of protest were held by Socialists from California to Russia. The Mediation Commission so far indorse this feeling as to say that the "circumstances of Mooney's prosecution, in the light of history, led to the belief that the terrible and sacred instruments of criminal justice were consciously or unconsciously made use of against labor by its enemies in an industrial conflict."

When, many months ago, cable despatches from Petrograd reported a riotous demonstration against the American Embassy in the Russian capital, and added that it was in protest against the Mooney conviction in California, not a few Americans asked in surprise who Mooney was, what he had done, and why Russian Socialists should be excited about his conviction. The other day another unusual chapter was added to the history of the case when the Federal Mediation Commission recommended that President Wilson use his good offices with the California authorities to bring about a new trial for Mooney in case the California Supreme Court sustained his conviction. The Mediation Commission, in reviewing the history of the matter, says that "the Mooney case soon resolved itself into a new aspect of an old industrial feud instead of a subject demanding calm search for the truth."

It is not quite clear how the President's intervention is expected to bring about a new trial-the case is not in Federal courts. But in view of the facts above stated, the ordinary American citizen, who has no opinion whatever as to the guilt or innocence of Mooney and Billings, and who also earnestly wishes to see the despicable perpetrators of the outrage punished, may yet feel that common fairness calls for a trial in which an alleged suborner of perjury who is also suspected of perjury shall not be the State's chief witness.

THE ADMINISTRATION, PRO AND CON

With the oratorical fire for which he has earned a reputa tion, Senator Ollie James, of Kentucky, continued in the Senate the defense of the war activities of the Administration. His speech was made on February 14. However biting some of his words may seem in print, it is impossible to think of them as being accompanied by anything less than the good-natured smile of this massive Senator from Kentucky. His line of argument was much the same as that which Mr. Glass followed in the speech which he made in the House and which we reported last week.

The offense with which Thomas J. Mooney (together with others) was charged was the throwing of a bomb into the Preparedness Parade in San Francisco on July 22, 1916. Six persons were killed and many injured by this outrage. Mooney was duly convicted, but largely on the direct testimony of Frank Oxman. After the conviction letters from Oxman came to light which, in the words of the Mediation Commission, had the plain import of an attempt by Oxman to suborn perjury to corroborate his testimony in this trial against Mooney. Naturally, when Oxman was thus discredited, a stain was placed on his own evidence. Oxman was indicted, but the jury failed to.

During the course of the debate there have been charges of partisanship against those who criticise certain aspects of the Administration's management of the war. This point, as well February 15. Unlike Senator James, Senator Weeks made no as others, was taken up by Senator Weeks in his speech on effort for rhetorical effect, but read his manuscript closely. The Senator from Massachusetts declared near the outset of his speech that never in his experience in the House of Representatives or in the Senate had he seen a Congressional investigation so devoid of partisanship; that the investigation had been conducted on the principle that the people have a right to examine and regulate the administration of their Government. He acknowledged the difficulties with which the War Department had to wrestle, and said that the Committee that made the investigation had just cause of pride in much that had been accomplished. But he gave facts in evidence of shortcomings, prefacing them by the following statement:

If I were to criticise the Secretary of War personally, it would be that he has undertaken to do too many things himself, some of which, at least, might have been attended to by subordinates, and that he has been too open to access to people who might have had their needs provided for through some subordinate officer, leaving him too little time to deliberate over the many larger problems coming before his Department.

If I were to make a further criticism, it would relate to his temperamental relationship to war. Doubtless he himself would admit that he is a pacifist by nature. For example, he is even now opposed to universal military training, one of the benefits we ought to get out of the great sacrifices we are making; and I cannot divorce myself from the conclusion, based on his own testimony, that he has been inclined to plan for the prosecution of the war-and this condition has to some degree permeated the Department-on the basis that we are three thousand miles from the front, instead of hastening preparation with all the vigor we would exercise if our borders were the battle-front.

In reference to the charges of political bias Senator Weeks said near the conclusion of his speech:

Not a question indicating partisanship was raised until the President deliberately injected politics into the situation by an

[subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small]

attack upon the Chairman of the Committee and the Committee itself, which the Chairman represents, and by calling to the White House many Democratic party leaders, not for consultation purposes, but to insist that a discussion of this question on the floor of the Senate be prevented if possible. This latter statement, of course, is based upon current gossip, but as far as I can learn it has never been denied.

Here is a vital question to consider. Have we come to such a pass that the action of the most important committee in Congress at this time is to be forbidden by the President of the United States as far as he is able to do so?

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN 1920

The first gun in the Presidential campaign for 1920 was fired at St. Louis, Missouri, on the afternoon of February 13, when Mr. W. H. Hays, of Indiana, was elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Ordinarily the election of a National Chairman in either of the two great parties is a matter of little interest to the great body of voters. It usually commands the attention only of the inside party managers. In this case, however, there was a fundamental principle at stake, and the election of Mr. Hays was the conclusion of a deep-seated and strenuous controversy. His opponent was Mr. John T. Adams, of Dubuque, Iowa. Mr. Adams was a member of the Committee; Mr. Hays was not. Mr. Adams is an orthodox Republican of the strictest sect, and had the united support of that wing of the party popularly known as "standpatters" or the Old Guard; Mr. Hays, who was Republican State Chairman of Indiana in the Presidential campaign of 1916, and to whose efficiency and liberal spirit is ascribed the success of the Republicans in carrying that State for Mr. Hughes, is one of the younger Republi can leaders. He is a lawyer of forty years of age who is believed by his supporters and suspected by the old war horses of being sympathetic with the political principles and policies which led to the schism between the Taft Republicans and the Roosevelt Republicans in 1912. Without allying himself with the extremists of either wing, he succeeded in uniting both factions in the State of Indiana in 1916, and made Indiana a liberal Republican State. This was a noteworthy achievement, for Indiana has been conservative in its political course, now on the Democratic side and now on the Republican side, for many years. It has been generally regarded as a typical standpat State. What ex-Senator Frederick M. Davenport said in The Outlook in May, 1916, of the ferment at that time in Indiana throws not a little light on the currents and forces which have led to Mr. Hays's election:

party could not bear the burden of being managed by a man, no matter how fine his personal character, who had justified the invasion of Belgium and protested against any vigorous action on the part of the United States regarding the sinking of the Lusitania and the drowning of American women and children among its innocent passengers.

In 1912 we expressed more than once in these pages the hope that the revolutionary progressive movement of that year would lead to the establishment in this country of two great parties, not a Reactionary and a Progressive party, not a Tory and a Liberal party, but a Conservative and a Radical party. The election of Mr. Hays may foreshadow just such a result. The Republicans and the Democrats would both, in such a case, look toward the future and would both assert their belief that the country will steadily progress towards greater governmental efficiency and a more widely distributed social justice. The Republicans, however, might become the party standing for the conservation in this progress of whatever is good in the insti tutions that we have laboriously built up during the century and a quarter of our National existence. The Democrats might become the party laying emphasis on the need of radical struc tural changes in our forms of government. Both parties would then stand for social welfare in National and international relations; but the country would have presented to it the opportunity to choose, not between two different ends which it wishes to attain, but between the methods by which it will reach a single end; and the voters would be asked to decide whether, in curing the ills of the body politic, they prefer to adopt the conservative method of political hygiene or the radical method of political surgery.

The narrow arrogance of the Bourbon inner circle is much less prominent. The fine young Chairman of the State Central Committee [Mr. Hays, who has now been chosen to manage the Presidential campaign of 1920] is sounding across the State the slogan that the right of participation in party affairs by the membership of the party shall be and remain equally sacred and sacredly equal. The leading Progressives are by no means all reconciled, and some of them are waiting for a little more evidence of real return to the faith once delivered to Lincoln. But man after man of the younger Fairbanks organization assure ine that the whole plan was necessarily as well as happily on the level. We are tired, said they, of the long-time prostitution of the party government by the union of the Taggart element [Taggart being the head of the Democratic State machine] and the Bourbon Republican element. The old idea of the party control in the hands of a few for the sole purpose of holding office and keeping up a perfunctory government with special privileges for the few has maintained itself too long.... Government, said these young men, is a social function as well as a recording and policing device, and it has got to be used more and more for the good of all the people and to make a real country. The election of Mr. Hays is as near an assurance as anything can be in politics that there will be no "steam-roller" tactics in the management of the Republican campaign of 1920.

It must not, however, be supposed that the Old Guard has completely surrendered. Indeed, Mr. Adams would undoubtedly have been elected by the pledged votes of the ultra-orthodox Republicans if it had not been publicly revealed by the production of letters which he had written at the outbreak of the war that he was strongly pro-German in the autumn of 1914. It was apparent even to his strongest supporters that the Republican

SIR CECIL SPRING-RICE

I had a rifle range at Sagamore Hill where I often took friends to shoot. . . . The best man with pistol and rifle who ever shot there was Stewart Edward White. Among the many other good men was a stanch friend, Baron Speck von Sternberg, afterwards German Ambassador at Washington during my Presi dency. He was a capital shot, rider, and walker.... Among the other men who shot and rode and walked with me was Cecil Spring-Rice.... He was my groomsman, my best man, when I was married-at St. George's, Hanover Square, which made me feel as if I were living in one of Thackeray's novels.

So wrote Theodore Roosevelt in his autobiography. The sudden death at the age of fifty-eight, at Ottawa, of Sir Cecil Arthur Spring-Rice comes as a shock to a host of friends in many parts of the world. He had made himself the understanding friend of every people with whom he had been associated He was born and bred and lived in the best traditions of British diplomacy. His father was a former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. His education was at Eton and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he took honors. His wife is a daughter of Sir Frank Lascelles, British Minister or Ambassador for over thirty years. Sir Cecil became clerk in the Foreign Office, and Secretary to Earl Granville, British Foreign Secretary, and Secretary of Legation at Brussels before his appointment to Washington (where he formed a close friendship with Theodore Roosevelt, then Civil Service Commissioner), going thence to Tokyo, Berlin, Constantinople, Teheran, Cairo, Petrograd, and rising steadily in the diplomatic scale until he was appointed Minister to Persia, and afterwards Minister to Sweden. In 1912 he came as Ambassador to Washington.

We repeat what we said at the time of his appointment as Ambassador. Sir Cecil was a man of very wide and very deep cultivation, but of simple democracy, not merely socially, but intellectually; he had a peculiar understanding of the great world forces that tell for division and union, not only as between civilized nations, but as between the civilized and the less civil ized nations of mankind; yet with this knowledge went an inti mate understanding of the play of social and industrial forces within the great civilized industrial nations themselves. Particu larly did Sir Cecil have a sympathetic insight into American character.

Such were the qualities which Viscount Bryce's successor as British Ambassador to the United States brought to his task here. Lord Bryce won just fame as publicist, educator, historian,

and philosopher. His successor as Ambassador did not have such distinction. He was simply an administrator. Yet on such as he the British Empire chiefly rests. Its main work must of necessity be quietly done in order to be efficiently and effectively done.

Especially has this been evident during the crisis of the past few years. Here was Germany with her agents-Bernstorff, Dernburg, Papen, Boy-Ed, and the rest-full of luridly conspic uous and unceasing energy. To oppose their activity Great Britain's representative seemed markedly inconspicuous; but he was none the less effective. We heard no more about the British Ambassador than if we were living in peace times. Though he had a charming personality and winning speech, he rarely spoke in public.

In truth, Great Britain did not have to be sensational. Germany did. Germany's thought was alien to ours. The British Ambassador, however, knew that he represented what both Great Britain and the United States stand for. He was useful because he was not sensational, as the German Ambassador was.

Yet a year before America entered the war the British Ambassador had a difficult task. He had to reconcile us to the hardships of the British blockade. A ready and acute writerthough the forceful quality of his writing is known only to a too restricted body of men-he was the author of remarkable state papers supporting the British contention that the blockade rigors were necessary to combat German warfare. In the many troublesome cases that have arisen between this country and England no one, we think, could have worked more faithfully or shown greater discretion. Sir Cecil's success in this line of endeavor is generally admitted. The patience and courage with which he handled the grave problems provoked by the war will cause his memory to be preserved as an inspiration not only by all those privileged to work with him but by all for whom he worked.

LET US DEFEAT THE GERMANS IN THE AIR

The best way to silence the German artillery is to conquer the German air fleet. The aerial supremacy of the Allies enabled them to achieve their advance at the Somme. At once the whole German aeronautic department was reorganized, with the result that to-day in aerial strength the Germans appear to be equal to the Allies.

It is now for the United States to offset this balance of power, not in a small way, but overwhelmingly and by every

means.

Hence we call attention to the appeal now being made by the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation to increase the number of engineers in the Naval Aviation Service. Applicants do not have to be graduate engineers. All that is asked is that they should be practical men, those who have managed garages or shops or who have been the bosses of repair gangs. Any further necessary training will be supplied by the Government. The age limit is forty-one years, but exceptions will be made where special skill or experience is shown.

Thus some of the men above the draft age who have been lamenting the fact that they cannot take an active part in the war have now a chance to prove the sincerity of their plaint.

DR. ODELL'S ARTICLES

We are sure our readers will be interested to know that the articles by Dr. Joseph H. Odell which have been appearing in The Outlook on our training camps, under the title "The New Spirit of the New Army," have been published in book form by the Fleming H. Revell Company, 158 Fifth Avenue, New York City, with an Introduction by Mr. Baker, Secretary of War. In this Introduction Mr. Baker says: "These chapters interested me greatly when in part they first appeared in The Outlook, for I found in them a complete understanding of the work of the War Department Commission on Training Camp

Activities."

In the same patriotic spirit which prompted these articles on the training camps Dr. Odell is now writing for The Outlook a series of articles on the necessity of establishing a durable peace on the battlefield before negotiations can be taken up at the

conference table. The first of these articles appeared in The Outlook of February 13, and was called "Passing the Buck in Washington;" the second appeared last week under the title "Who Is the United States?""; the third of the series will appear in next week's Outlook, dated March 6, under the title "Interpreting the People to the President." Its purpose will be to endeavor to show from the President's own speeches that the true policy of the war is a defeat at arms of militaristic autocracy. The article will maintain that the spirit of the American people is such now that they will not be willing to abate the President's own demand in the slightest, that they will not be contented with a negotiated peace unless the nego tiations are sought for by the German people after their recog nition and admission that Prussian militarism is a complete failure as a war machine, and therefore as an instrument of world politics.

I

KAISER, PREMIER, AND PRESIDENT F the German Kaiser, the British Prime Minister, and the American President had met in conference, they could hardly have exchanged views more effectually than by their recent utterances within the period of two successive days. On the part of the German Kaiser on the one side and on the part of the British Prime Minister on the other there was no sign of yielding. "We desire," said the Kaiser, "to live in friendship with neighboring peoples, but the victory of German arms must first be recognized. "It was adamant," said the British Prime Minister, concerning the attitude of Austria as well as Germany to the demands of the Allies; and like adamant stood Lloyd George himself. But the President seemed far from being irreconcilable. Though he replies to the German Chancellor as to one who lives "in his thought in a world dead and gone," the President takes up the words of Count Czernin, the spokesman of Austria, with what seems like eagerness for reconciliation and mutual understanding.

Does this mean that the President is entertaining the thought that possibly America may compromise with those who by terrorism and lawlessness have undertaken to impose their will on the world? Is it possible that to the demands of such as these the President is making ready for yielding anything essential to victory? We think not.

Does this mean, then, that the President sees any reasonable prospect that the enemy is ready to make concessions? We do not believe so.

What seems far more probable is that the President saw an opportunity of unmasking an enemy, of stripping him of his disguise, and took it.

To understand the President's speech, it is necessary to recall what preceded it.

[ocr errors]

On January 8 President Wilson, in an address before Congress, announced fourteen " arrangements and covenants which he declared to be "the programme of the world peace,' and "the only possible programme." (These fourteen points can be found quoted verbatim in The Outlook for January 16.) These may be summarized very briefly as follows: I. Public diplomacy. II. Freedom of navigation except as limited by international action. III. Equality of trade conditions. IV. Reduction of armaments. V. Adjustments of colonial claims, with equal regard for the populations concerned and the claims of the Governments in question. VI. The unembarrassed opportunity for Russia to determine her own political development. VII. The evacuation and restoration of Belgium. VIII. The restoration of invaded France and the righting of the wrong done to France in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine. IX. The readjustment of the frontiers of Italy. X. Autonomous development of the peoples of Austria-Hungary. XI. Evacuation of Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro, and guarantees to the Balkans. XII. Autonomous development of the non-Turkish parts of Turkey and international guarantees for the Dardanelles. XIII. An independent Polish state. XIV. A general association of nations.

To this address, intended very clearly not primarily for Congress but for the Central Empires, both the German Chancellor, Count von Hertling, and the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Min

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »