Springfield weekly Republican. [volume], August 16, 1917, Page 2, Image 2

About Springfield weekly Republican. [volume] (Springfield, Mass.) 1851-1946

Image provided by: Boston Public Library

                
2
AMERICA'S PART IN STRUGGLE
The chief measures in the war pro
gram of the administration are now
enacted. After five months of war
With Germany, the government has
725.000 soldiers actually under arms
in the federal service, and it is draft
ing 600,000 more for immediate train
ing. The military machine has been
constructed and it Is beginning to
function. Ship construction on a
Prodigious scale is under way both for
the merchant marine and for the
■avy. The largest air fleet thus far
created by any nation at war has been
begun for the United States army.
The food control administration is a
reality and our duties In feeding our
European allies the coming winter
and spring will not be neglected.
While this country has scarcely more
than begun to make its weight felt
in the balance, a stage has been
reached where that weight will steadi
ly increase from week to week; and
Germany's hopes for a victorious end
of the war before America can be
come an important factor In it seem
less substantial than they were earlier
in the year.
The fading hopes for a 'German
“peace" are due to the moral impos
sibility of making terms with such a
crew of desperado war lords as are
still flrmly intrenched in power at
Berlin. Their insincerity and treachery
toward their own people is now
Virtually confessed by the liberal and
reform elements, especially by the
eocialist leaders, who entertained live
ly anticipations of a less chauvinistic
government as the result of the
changes in the ministry. Even the
pacifists of England and America,
bitterly as they deplore the war and
its continuation, are utterly baffled
When they face .the realities of the
“'strong" peace which Chancellor Mi
chaelis has declared indispensable to
Germany’s future prosperity and
security. When our pacifist friends at
home and abroad attempt to define
the terms of an endurable peace in a
world that has not utterly lost the
last vestige of moral sensibility in
international relations. they fail
miserably and pitifully to outline a
program that would not be laughed to
scorn at the headquarters of the
crown prince and turned down as
quite out of harmony with the war
map. if .you please, in the offices of
the Imperial chancellor.
One of the latest of these efforts
by pacifist organizations to outline
peace terms is that of the union for
democratic control in England. Sug
gestions are made which are utterly
without support in any utterance by a
responsible official of the German gov
ernment The union for democratic
control desires: —
The complete re-establishment of the
sovereign independence and integrity
and the economic restoration of Bel
gium.
Servia. Montenegro and Rumania
evacuated and their independence re
stored,
The dispesition of Alsace-Lorraine
by popular vote of the inhabitants
under the supervision of an interna
tional commission.
The disposition of the Trentino by
the same method.
A free and independent Poland, to
include Prussian and Austrian Poland
if their inhabitants so vote.
Special reparation for Belgium from
Germany, “owing to the circumstances
under which she was forced into the
war."
To make these terms of peace effec
tive as against the opposition of the
present government of Germany, the
war must be continued; even the pa
cifists of England and America speci
fy peace conditions which they must
fight for in order to see them realized.
The notion that the rulers of Ger
many are prepared to give up Alsace-
Lorraine or Prussian Poland if their
inhabitants wish to cast off German
allegiance is childish, nor is it possi
ble to believe that Dr Michaelis's
“strong peace" would provide a billion
marks of German money for the
economic and social restoration of an
Independent Belgium.
The conscience of the world which
is aligned against Germany in this
struggle revolts against a peace that
would not make full restitution for
the most unforgiveable wrongs, and
If a German peace should be forced
upon nations too exhausted for fur
ther resistance, it would be a compact
written, as it were, in water. For
there could be no escape from the
renewal of the struggle in later years.
Permanent peace with the militarism
and economic and territorial avarice
of such a force as kaiserlsm would no
more be possible than permanent
peace was possible with Napoleon in
bls most arrogant days.
We have started on a long journey,
it may be. But the more determined
the American people are to sustain
taeir part in the struggle without fal
tering. the sooner will there be an
end consistent with our American
ideals concerning the true basis of
peace and the reorganization of the
world as a brotherhood of states
dominated in some degree at least by
a moral purpose. Germany can never
conquer foes that see only such an end
to the conflict.
THE LA FOLLETTE RESOLUTION
Senator LaFollette's peace resolution
is Impossible. It proposes something
affecting Belgium that Is morally re
pulsive and monstrous. Even the
peace resolution of the American union
against militarism, one of the most
conspicuous pacifist organizations in
the United States, insists "that inde
•pendent Belgium will be entitled to
•special restitution from Germany, ow
‘ing to the circumstances under which
•she was forced into the war.” Is it pos
sible that a considerable number of
people anywhere in this country would
approve of Senator LaFollette’s re
pudiation of the principle of "special
•restitution" in the case of Belgium
and support his proposal of a "com
•mon fund.” "to be provided by all
•the belligerent nations.” which should
fee used for the "restoration” of the
“portions of territory in any of the
•countries most seriously devastated
lay the war”?
Tiw theory of this LaFollette pro-
posal is that Germany is no more
to blame, morally speaking or legal
ly speaking, than any or all of her
I antagonists in this war—no more
' to blame even than the United States.
I All the belligerents should contribute
to the "common fund” without the
I least distinction between them being
j made on the ground of responsibility
i for the crime of Belgium’s violation
; and despoilment. If one could be sure
that the Wisconsin senator saw clearly
the bearing of his proposal it might
well be branded as a piece of stark in
famy.
It has so happened that Lieut-Gen
Baron von Freytag-Loringhoven.
chief of the supplementary general
staff of the German army, otherwise
described as Germany’s “leading mili
tary historian.” who has access to
the general staff records, has written
an article within a few days for the
German "ess in which he admits that
Germany’s invasion of neutral Belgium
in August. 1014. was not due in the
least to military and defensive neces
sity provoked by alleged preparations
j of the French to use Belgium as a
j h^hway for the invasion of Ger
many. The violation of Belgium,
which this German military historian
now says was not anticipated by the
Flinch. whose preparations were
b »ably confined to their own Ger
frontier, is seen more and more
clearly with each passing year to
* been one of the vilest acts of
treachery and one of the most sinister
a^d brazen crimes against civilization ;
that the history of mankind records.
Yet the senator from Wisconsin ;
would have Germany go scot free in
the assessment of special damages on
account of that maimed, tortured and
ruined country. He would have no
special restitution made by Germany
to Belgium; we should all —France.
Britain and even the United States
—be nlaced on a level with Germany
in contributing to a ‘‘common fund.”
The Wisconsin senator has many ad -
mirable qualities of mind and heart,
and he h^s performed much good
service for the country, but his pro
posal is staggering because it virtual
ly denies that for the most infamous
acts deliberately committed for a
selfish end a nation can be held ac
countable.
Before the United States recognizes
the principle of equality with Ger
many in moral obligation to restore
Belgium, the republic should chai -
lenge the most terrible fate that an
invincible German militarism could
devise for it. But no one need be 1
concerned lest Mr LaFollette’s reso- !
lution will pass the Senate.
THE GOVERNMENT AND LABOR
The success of the united brother
hood of carpenters and joiners of
America In forcing the closed shop
on a contractor who is building a
new army cantonment for the gov
ernment at Pelham Bay Park. N. Y.,
will eliminate all labor but union la
bor from the job and may result in
some delay in the completion of the
cantonment. The labor thus barred is
largely the so-called unskilled labor,
to be sure, yet it is awkward for the
government to have to sanction even
by Indirection, as it must, a principle
that excludes some American citi
zens from work on government con
tracts. The position of the govern
ment would be much better if the
brotherhood had agreed to let any car
penter in reputable standing freely
join its membership in return for the '
estaolishment of the closed shop. In
that case, no labor monopoly on a gov
ernment work would be virtually
recognized.
Comparisons are not profitable, per
haps, and there may be no advantage
derived from calling attention to the
conduct of the trade unions In Great
Britain in agreeing to put aside many
restrictive regulations and standards
for the period of the war in
order that the production of all
war materials and necessaries might
be speeded up. The c osed shop was
one of the trade union objectives that
was temporarily abandoned by British
unionists on patriotic grounds. That
this was afterwards regretted in trade
union circles is not at all clear, al
though it is true that the relaxation
of unionist standards of labor for
women and children, especially in the
matter of hours and night work, was
afterward condemned by a royal com
mission of Inquiry. There are stand
ards of labor that should not be
abandoned even temporarily, under
any circumstances likely to arise in
this country, but it can hardly be
maintained that in an exigency of
war the closed shop principle is
among them.
Labor troubles are evidently ahead
of the government, in spite of all the
efforts that have been made to pre
vent them. They may at no time
assume a grave aspect in any par
ticular case; and that some difficul
ties should arise here and there Is to
be expected. How hard government
■ officials are working to minimize the
difficulties appears in the establish
ment of a new labor adjustment com
mission by the council of national
defense, which shall seek to adjust
all labor disputes in establishments
having contracts with the govern
ment. It Is the purpose of the gov
ernment to insist In all future con
tracts unon the eight-hour dav and
liberal pay for overtime work by the
contractors, but nothing is said in
the council’s statement of its plans
about the closed shop. Evidently if
this issue Is forced an any scale, as
It seems to have been in nne case at
least, the government will be obliged
to take a position. As for the adjust
ment of strikes under future con
tracts. the council says:—
Every contractor and subcontractor
shall agree to accept and abide by the
decision of the labor adjustment com
mission or committee, as the case may
be. and every worker accepting em
ployment in any plant within the
jurisdiction of the adjustment com
mission shall do so with the definite
understanding and agreement that he
will accept and abide by the decisions
of the adjustment commission or the
THE SPRINGFIELD WEEKLY REPUBLICAN: THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1917
committee, ns the case may be. in
the settlement of any question affect
ing labor.
If the trade unionists will sign
such an agreement, the situation may
become one simply of contractual
compulsory arbitration during the pe
riod of the war. This solution must
command the approval of everyone
who has the interests of the country
at heart in the present crisis. It is
difficult to see why all reasonably
managed trade unions cannot agree to
such a proposal. As for the indus
trial worker* of the world, to whom
the president has sent a special com
missioner for purposes of inquiry,
their case is much more difficult. Mr
Haywood, the secretary of the or
ganization. admits that patriotism
does not enter into their creed. "We
‘think.” says he. "there is only one
•fight in the world, and that is between
•capital and labor.”
STILL FREE SPEECH
If a meeting of German revo’ution
i ists should be held in one of the
I most militaristic committee rooms
lof the Reichstag building in Ber-
I Un. and the chief speaker should
be allowed to demand the dethrone
! ment of the kaiser, it is no ex
! aggeration to say that we should all
I be very much surprised. But that sort
I of thing has happened in Washington.
; 1). C.. and nobody is going to make the
। least fuss about it. Our own feeling
i is one of solid satisfaction because in
■ the committee room of Senator Cham-
I berlain. the father or the stepfather
lof the selective draft law. in the
Senate wing of the capitol, a pacifist
meeting has been held at which Frank
Stephens of Arden. Del., demanded
that Congress should stay in session
until it had impeached the president
of the United States for high crimes
and misdemeanors.
Nothing could be more alien to our
sentiments than an impeachment trial
of the president at this time; the
pleasure to be derived from Mr Ste
phens’s exploit is due entirely to the
fact that he has proved to the hilt
that free speech still exists in the
republic. Mr Step' ens himself de
claims against “the gross violations
‘of constitutional liberty” being perpe
trated in this country, but his auda
cious coup in delivering unmolested a
speech under the dome of the capitol
demanding the impeachment of the
chief magistrate of the nation must
convince the majority of the Ameri
can people that Prussian autocracy is
1 not yet fully established on these
! shores.
We also wish to announce that the
American Socialist is still being pub
lished in Chicago. The weekly issue
dated Saturday is at hand and it well
sustains the paper’s reputation as the
implacable enemy of the policy of
American participation in the war.
Morris Hillquit. the leader of the ma
jority socialist faction that described
America’s entrance into the war as a
“crime.” may rightly feel considerable
pride in the party organ, viewing it
from his peculiar angle of vision. The
post-office authorities have forbidden
the use of the mails to the American
Socialist, but evidently the tyranny^of
the government has not pursued the
publication to extreme lengths, judg
ing by the current number.
Let us have free speech until w r e
drip with it. The printing press and
the organs of human speech have
never overturned a government nor
upset a nation that deserved to sur
vive. Our friends the socialists may
socialize and our friends the pacifists
may pacify world without end; the
rest of us will endeavor to carry the
burden of the war to a conclusion that
will make the Planet a safer place for
them to thrh i.
FOOD AND THE HARVEST
The August crop report emphasizes
the tact that the food control bill,
which finally passed the Senate last
week by the tremendous majority of
66 to 7. was almost criminally de
layed in Congress. The bill now goes
to the president after being wilfully
obstructed for weeks. The need of
such of a law may be seen in the dis
appointing yield of wheat now esti
mated. The crop has fallen off. since
July 1, from a total of 678,000,000 to
653,000,000 bushels, although the
grain trade had been looking for a
gain.
A total yield of 653,000,000 bushels of
wheat, now forecast, is but about 13,000,-
000 bushels more than last year's short
crop and it compares meagerly with
the record wheat crop of 1,025.000,000
bushels in 1915. Before last year we
had had no wheat harvest under 730,-
000,000 bushels since 1911. In view
of rhe world's present demand for
wheat, this year's supply is nothing
short of a disaster, and the food ad
ministration at Washington will have
a difficult situation to meet in mak
ing the short crop go around.
We are evidently to be blessed, how
ever, with a corn crop of the great
est size in our history. Corn's condi
tion as of August 1 indicates a total
yield of 3,191,000.000 bushels, which
exceeds the crop of 1912 by over 60.-
000.000. The rains in the chief corn-pro
ducing states since August 1. must, if
anything, increase rather than dimin
ish the yield forecast by the govern-,
ment. An oat crop of 1.456.000,000
bushels, now indicated, will surpass all
previous records except the yield In
1915. With record crops of rye, bar
ley and potatoes in sight, there is
abundant cause for thanksgiving, in
spite of the year’s disappointment as
to wheat.
MR HOOVER'S FIRST MOVE
The Impression made by Mr Hoo
ver’s announcement of hia plans to
control the wheat and flour supplies
of the country will be that he cannot
fall because of Indecision and lack of
strong initiative The government is
prepared to buy up the whole wheat
crop of 1917, if necessary, and the
price-fixing commission, headed by
President Garfield of Williams col-
lege, will Immediately undertake to
lower the cost of flour and bread tor
the consumer.
The hope is expressed even that the
old five-cent loaf will come back, but
it is unwise to arouse public expecta
tions to such an extent that a popular
; disappointment would cause a severe
i reaction in public sentiment against
' the whole food control administration.
The opponents of the new law in Con
gress predicted that’ disappointment
was surely in store for the people,
and doubtless the more extreme hopes
of reduced living expenses will be
disappointed. The public should ap
preciate the difficulties the food ad
ministration must encounter and look
for no more than reasonable results.
With a firm regulation of the wheat
and flour trades stability in prices
should be brought about of real bene
fit tc the country. Already a marked
effect of the new law may be noted
in the price of corn, which has been
abnormally high compared with
wheat. Cash corn has been as high
as $2.40 cents a bushel, but in the
past three or four days It has dropped
60 cents.
Western wheat growers have been
holding back their new harvest from
market in the hope of getting much
higher prices later on. although wheat
is now selling in Chicago much above
$2 a bushel, the minimum price the
law fixes for next year’s crop. It will
.deeply interest the wheat growers to
read Mr Hoover's announcement that,
after the price for this year’s crop
has been fixed, “it will not be to the
‘advantage of any producer to hold
‘back his grain In anticipation of
‘further advance, for he will do so
‘only at his own cost of storage and
•interest, and if it is necessary for
‘the government to buy the entire
'wheat crop in order to maintain this
fab price in protection of the pro
kip er. we intend to do so.”
While the new law does not forbid
hoarding of grain by the producer
thereof, it appears that the food ad
ministration has matured a plan tor
preventing this hoarding in practice
by making it not worth while as a
matter of profits. The price-fixing
board will have upon it capable rep
resentatives es the wheat growers, so
that no charge can be made later on
that the food administration was dom
inated by the consumers’ interests.
GOVERNMENT PRICE-FIXING
The announcement of policy in re
gard to prices by the war industries
board does not go beyond the presi
dent’s statement of July 11 at the
most important points. The board is
not definite as to its methods in price
fixing. “We shall allow a reasonable
‘profit,” says the board, "but shall deny
'the extortion now exacted for many
‘commodities of prime necessity.” Tll9
board adopts as its guide in price-fix
ing the president’s definition of a “just
‘price":—
By a just price I mean a .price ■which
will sustain the industries concerned
In a high state of efficiency, provide a
living for those who conduct them, en
able them to pay good wages, ami
make possible expansions of their en
terprises which will from time to tim"
become necessary as the stupendous
undertakings of this great war de,
velop.
The proof of the pudding is in the ea;-
ing of it. and the test of price-flxihg
will he in the fixing.
The board’s announcement, indeed,
does not get beyond the president’s
previous statement in the matter of
prices for the public. Mr Wilson had
declared that “wo must make the
‘prices for the public the same as the
‘prices to the government.” Nor is
there anything new regarding prices
for the allies; they will get the samt
prices as the United States govern;
ment on orders for supplies necessary
for the conduct of the war. The war
industries board amplifies the poinl
that this policy must be reciprocal, the
allies granting to America the same
treatment, but. practically speaking,
purchases of war supplies abroad by
the United States are almost negligi
ble.
Yet. evidently, progress Is bein;
made toward some working solution
of the question of war prices and the
powerful administrative boards, such
as the federal trade commission, the
federal shipping board, the exports
council and the food administrator,
will co-operate with the war indus
tries board In* trying to keep the
prices of materials necesary to the
waging of the war within reasonable
bounds. It is a task beyond human
powers, if complete success is desired.
All that can be hoped for is an ap
proximate success so that the result
of government intervention will he
something better than the result of
governmental nonintervention in the
orgies of profiteering.
The government Is not yet fully
equipped for complete control of the
prices of all war necessities and its
efforts may be blocked more or less
on that account. The food bill gives
the president control of fuels, fuel
oil. natural gas. fertilizers and farm
machinery, in addition to foodstuffs
and feedstuffs; coal, therefore, is
now subject to the executive will by
specific authorization of law. Fuel
prices may be fixed or the mines may
be taken over by the government and
operated. But the iron and steel in
dustry and the other metal Industries
are not thus treated bv any legislation
thus far passed by Congress.
If necessary, the president may ask
Congress for specific powers of mar
ket control over other war Industries
but. In the meantime, it seems that
the administration expects to im
pose its will merely by expressing Its
desires concerning prices In whatever
Industry an issue may arise. For the
government controls the entire export
trade through the embargo, it con
trols shipping absolutely. It controls
the fuel supply of the United States
and through the war Industries board
and the railroads It controls the rout
ing of Interstate commerce. What in
dustry or what corporation, however
powerful, could afford to fight the
government? Public, opinion in war
time would invariably suspect the ob-
structor of the government’s policy
of greed and avarice and surrender
would be inevitable.
Economic reasons alone -do not de
termine the government's policy tn
this matter. Political reasons play
a part. The people will not stand
the spectacle of a favored few being
made fabulously rich out of the wan
while others give up everything that
makes life worth living. It seems
idle to urge purely economic argu
ments. therefore, against government
intervention in the war industries.
What we may hope for is that the
men on the government boards who
will have the actual decisions regard
ing prices to make will compromise
conflicting interests so that industry
will not be halted and the incentive
to the production of \ ealth will not
be seriously weakened.
SOLDIERS' PENSION SYSTEM
The project for soldiers’ insurance
and compensation introduced in Con
gress as an administration measure is
a promising attempt to remove per
manently the pension question from
our politics when the present war is
ended. Leading life insurance ex
perts were consulted in developing
the plan. In some respects the pro
posed system resembles the workmen's
compensation acts which many states
have enacted in recent years. The
soldier's business is extra hazardous
and if he is injured he merits special
compensation; if he is killed, his de
pendents must receive some indem
nity. The measure now brought for
ward embodies a principle hitherto
recognized in all the soldiers’ pen
sion legislation of the United States,
but the, present effort is to place the
system upon a scientific and nonpoliti
cal basis.
Fortunately the insurance and com
pensation features of the plan are far
more familiar to the public of to-day
than they could have been a genera
tion or two ago when all forms of in
surance were but crudely developed
In this country. The difficulties of
securing the establishment of the new
system by Congress, therefore should
not be insuperable. Congress, in
deed. should welcome an opportunity
to save countless millions f< r the
government and the future taxpayer
by placing soldiers' pensions beyond
the influence of political pressure and
congressional favoritism. The his
tory of the development of the pen
sion system following the civil war
is not unfairly described in a state
ment published last week at Wash
ington by the republican publicity
association:-—
Pension legislation in this country
has not been adequate, timely or
equitable. Politics has always had
more or less to do with civil war pen
sion legislation. The bid for the "old
soldier” vote has been too much of
a factor in the framing of pension
laws. The system of granting pen
sions by special act of Congress has
been open to abuse and has some
times ‘savored very much of "pork."
Pensions by special act came by spe
cial favor, which should not be the
practice.
This utterance is notable, coming as
it does from republican sources at the
national capitol. for the republican
party is mainly responsible for the
pension system hitherto existing. It
is not worth while now to blame any
body for the extravagancies in
equities and scandals associated with
pension legislation and the adminis
tration of the federal pension bureau
since the civil war. for the old sys
tem was the natural product of the
earlier American conditions. Bu
there can be no possible excuse i
our best constructive statesmanship
does not now devise a new system that
shall be above reproach.
It can be done. The subject taken
up at this time, before the war is
ended, arouses no partisan or politi
cal rancor such as always handicapped
civil war pension legislation, and both
parties in Congress can approach the
project with perfect harmony and
zeal in the public service. There is
no sectionalism in the raising of the
new’ national army under the selective
draft and even the volunteer enlist
ments thus far in the regular army
and the notional guard have been
distributed among the states very
closely in proportion to their popula
tion. There will be consequently, no
issue of sectionalism, after the war,
on account of the government’s pay
ment of pension money.
A government life and casualty in
surance system like the one proposad
will require the expenditure by the
government of $17(5,000,000 the first
year and of $380,000,000 the second
year, according to the official esti
mates. Those who would balk at such
expenditures must remember that the
government’s pension costs under the
old system would be vastly larger
in the end. in case the casualties
among the American troops should be
heavy, for armies nowadays greatly
exceed in size those of all past times.
Our pension expenditures on account
of past wars prior to 1910 amounted
to five billions of dollars, and by
far the larger part of that sum was
due to the civil war—of which the
pensionable veterans were confined to
the Union side.
The measure contains excellent spe
cial features such as those providing
for the rehabilitation or re-educa
tion of disabled soldiers for occupa
tions in which they could contribute
to the future support of themselves
and their families. Wonderful work
along this line is already being done
in England. France and Germany for
soldiers who have been made blind
or have lost their limbs. No intelli
gent war program for the United
States can omit such a measure of
constructive welfare legislation for
soldiers as the administration has
proposed.
TAXING THE RICH
The war revenue bill, reported by
the finance committee after a careful
revision »f the bill that passed the
House, will not go through the Senate
without sharp criticism, but it Is to be
hoped that fersonal acrimony will not
prolong the debates as was the case
with the food control bill. The chief
attack, apparently, will be made by a
group of senators with radical vieWs
concerning the proportion of war funds
that should be raised by taxation as
distinct from borrowing. They would
raise more money by income and ex
cess profits taxes and less by bond
issues. The conscription of wealth
as well as the conscription of men's
bodies is their slogan, and an effective
one it is. For few of us can fail to
sympathize with It.
One's impression is that there will
be very little cause for dissatisfaction
as to what happens to wealth before
this war is over. At the very outset,
large bond issues are unavoidable be
cause America has to aid other powers
with money besides paying her own
war expenses. The United States
treasury has already loaned more than
a billion and a half of dollars to the
allies and to get that money it had
to borrow from the American peo
ple. There must be large loans to
the same allies in the future and. ob
viously, not all that money can be
raised by taxation. How far, in rais
ing money for our own war expendi
tures. we should go in taxation is a
question that van never be settled in
an ideal way, but the radicals who
want to make wealth bear the load are
likely to triumph for the m~st part be
fore this lob is finished.
The tendency of things is well il
lustrated by comparing the war rev
enue bill as it left the radical House
with the same bill as it leaves the con
servative finance committee of the
Senate. The House bill would have
raised about $1,800,000,000; the Sen
ate committee bill would raise over
$2,000,000,000. The House bill would
have raised less than $600,000,600
from individual and corporate in
comes; the Senate bill would raise
$777,000,000 from the same source.
The House bill would have raised some
$200,000,000 by taxing war profits; the
Senate bill would raise $562,000,000 in
that way. While the Senate bill strikes
out the unfair retroactive tax on last
year's incomes, it doubles the normal
tax on corporations and extends the
war profits tax to individuals and
partnerships in business. As for the
rate of taxation on war profits, the
House bill would have levied 16 per
cent on the excess left after certain
deductions; the Senate bill would levy
a tax graduated from 12 to 50 per
cent.
The point is that the more con
servative Senate committee has been
forced by the necessities of the situa
tion to tax more severely than the
House. But there will be a battle over
surtaxes on individual incomes. The
Lenroot amendment of the House bill
was struck out by the Senate com
mittee because it would impose ex
cessive surtaxes on incomes over $40,-
000. Whether they would be exces
sive is of course a question that may
be answered one way this year and
another way next year. Chairman
Simmons of the Senate committee
thinks that some sources of taxation
should be held in reserve, and he
must be adjudged a wise man If we
accept the conservative Prof Selig
man’s opinion that Congress will have
to raise next year in taxes twice what
it raises this year. The very
rich under the Senate bill would
pay surtaxes of 33 psr cent
on incomes in excess of $500,000 a
year, and an income of from SIOO,OOO
to $150,000 would pay a surtax of 20
per cent. That seems prettv fair as a
"rter. Next year these surtaxes
.11 climb like the mercury in a hot
wave.
Considerations like these would be
convincing as to the surtaxes it one
could know how long the war is to
last. There ought to be sources of
taxation in reserve —sources that
could be tapped without a confiscation
of incomes such that it would he im
possible to make good the annual
wastage of capital used in the pro
duction of new wealth. The argument
for at once increasing the surtaxes
up at least to the highest English
level in to be found in the possibility
that the war may be ended next year.
In that case, the very rich would
probably escape being taxed all they
could bear. Meanwhile, they are
favored by being offered war loan
bonds tax free. The Senate should
at least remove the tax-exempt fea
ture from the laws authorizing bond
Issues. If it is to stand for no higher
surtaxes on large incomes.
THE EMERGENCY FLEET
The appointment of Rear-Admiral
Francis Tiffany Bowles, former chief
constructor of the navy, to be as
sistant to Rear-Admiral Capps, gen
eral manager of the emergency fleet
corporation, will give Springfield a
still keener interest in what has be
come the most vital phase of the
war. Admiral Bowles has had a no
table career among American naval
constructors and shipbuilders. Born
in this city, he went to the naval
academy at Annapolis where his high
standing won him an assignment to
the construction corps of the navy.
He was sent by the government to
the royal naval college at Greenwich.
Eng., to continue his studies in naval
architecture. Admiral Bowles was
appointed chief constructor of the
navy In 1901 and resigned In 1903 to
become president of the Fore river
ship building company. He has lately
been active as chairman of the Boston
public safety committee and It is un
derstood that he will begin his new
duties in connection with the emer
gency fleet corporation as soon as he
can wind up his affairs in connection
with the Boston committee. A dis
patch to the Boston Transcript from
Washington has thus described the
relations between Admiral Bowles and
Admiral Capps: —
When Admiral Bowles resigned as
chief constructor of the navy in 19<13
It was upon hie recommendation that
Admiral Capps was appointed as his
successor, and the two men have been
closely associated throughout theh
naval careers. The name of Admiral
Bowles was suggested to the presi
dent as a member of tfee shipping
board when it was first organized,
and his experience in the navy and
later as president of the Fore River
shit building corporation. his ac
quaintanceship with shipbuilders
throughout the country, and his repu
tation for energy and ability are all
expected to insure a cordial reception
by the public of the announcement of
his appointment.
THE KAISER AS A WITNESS
The squirming in Berlin on account
of the publication in this country of
the kaiser's message to President Wil
son on August 10. 1914, indicates
that embarrassment is felt ‘here be
cause of the disclosure. The semi
official Norddeutsche Allgemelne Zei
tung attempts to discredit Mr Gerard
by denying that such a message ex
ists and then, curiously, it admits that
"possibly" the kaiser wrote a ”mem
’orandum” ol his conversation with
Gerard “so that the embassador might
'not announce anything to Washington
'that was not correct." What differ
ence does It make whether the kaiser's
communication be called a message,
a telegram cr a memorandum? It was
confessedly the kaiser’s own version
of the outbreak of the war. Washing
ton now makes public the communi
cation aS ’t reached the president and
its authenticity is beyond question.
Even the Cologne Gazette sees the
futility of denying the genuineness of
the kaiser's message to the president
and says so to Its German readers.
The high historical value of this
ci mmunication from the kaiser, pre
pared just after his armies had en
tered Belgium, consists in the cumu
lative evidence it contains concerning
Germany’s reasons for violating Bel
gium's neutrality. The kaiser virtual
ly admits therein that his govern
ment had no “knowledge” justifying
the assumption that France was pre
'paring to enter Belgium: he tells
the truth, furthermore, in saying that
Belgium "had to be violated by Ger
many on strategic grounds."
It is now an old story of perfidy in
the breaking of treaties and in the
murdering of an Innocent nationality
foe the sake of a “strategic" advantage
over a foe that could not be easily at
tacked by way of his own frontier:
but it is also a fact that has colored
the whole war and that cannot pos
sibly be ignored in the peace-making
GERMANY’S CATHOLIC PARTY
That the farce of reform is played
out seems to be generally recognized
in Germany, but the part taken in the
comedy by the Catholic party still re
mains enigmatic. The final comic
touch is added by the decision of Dr
Peter Spahn, made Prussian minister
of justice by the king, not to seek
re-election to the Reichstag. It will
be recalled that in declaring for re
form at the time of the recent crisis
the Catholic party, whose action
caused some astonishment, took the
ground that representatives of the
great parties in the Reichstag should
be given posts in the government. As
a result of the collapse, caused by the
Catholic defection of the moderate
block which had supported the gov
ernment. Dr von Bethmann-Hollweg's
position as chancellor became unten
able.
His successor. Dr Michaelis, got
through his speech without commit
ting the government to anything of
consequence, but he assented almost
cordially to the demand of the Catho
lics. stipulating only that in return
for the representation of the Reichstag
in the government, the Reichstag
should refrain from meddling with
questions of policy, which were the
prerogative of the kaiser. This hand
some promise was punctually fulfilled
by the appointment of two parliamen
tarians to ministerial posts. Both au
tomatically. by the terms of the con
stitution. ceased to be members of the
Reichstag, a provision similar to the
British practice of requiring ministers
under certain conditions to resign
their seats and stand for re-election.
If the turn members of the Reichstag
to whom unimportant posts in the
government had been assigned had
followed this course, while the imme
diate results might have been negligi
ble. it could have been said that at
least a precedent had been created
carrying in it the germ of a parlia
mentary system.
The situation is a little confused
for Americans by the great differences
between the German constitution and
ours or that of Great Britain. As
Prussian minister of justice Dr
Spahn became ex officio member of
the Bundesrat, or imperial council.,
which in some ways has much more
power than the Reichstag. In some
phases it bears a faint analogy to our
Senate, and Its aristocratic character
allies it to the British House of
Lords, but it is essentially different
from either, a fact to keep in mind be
cause. as a matter of course, one could
not at the same time be a member
of Senate and House of Representa
tives or of Lords and Commons. But
lust that would be necessary if Dr
Spahn were to be both Prussian min
ister with a seat in the Bundesrat
and also leader of the centrists in the
Reichstag. That the constitution
could be so altered as to permit It
seems to have been assumed in Ger
many, but the real point at issue was
not the right to have membership in
both bodies, but the right of mem
bers of the Reichstag to hold minis
terial posts, thus establishing in em
brvo a cabinet responsible to the rep
resentatives of the people. In Great
Britain cabinet members may belong
to eithw house, but the cabinet can
not go on without the support of the
Commons, and It Is this form of con
trol which the sincere reformers In
Germany are working for.
Was the Catholic party sincerely
working for it? This is hard to be
lieve. because notoriously the Bavari
ans. who are the strongest Catholic
group, are opposed to strengthening
the Reichstag too greatly, because
Bavaria, as the strongest non-Prus
slan state, can exact more power un
der the present system by diplomacy
and bargains, such as the partition of
Alsace-Lorraine between Bavaria and
Prussia, agreed upon only a few
months ago. Nor have the German
Catholics in general shown themselves
enthusiastic for any reform pointing
toward democracy: it is not likely
that the Russian revolution, with Its
inevitable excesses, has pushed them
in that direction. That the part taken
by the Catholics in the demand for
reform was merely a political trick Is
the unavoidable conclusion from this
latest turn of events. It is coolly
dismissed by the Catholic organ. Ger
mania. with the casual remark: “To
‘return to the question of the parlia
‘mentarization of the government, we
‘all know to-dav how far responsible
‘advisers of the government have pro
‘ceeded, and may recognize in the
'present accomplishment the limits to
‘which they purpose to go. We need
‘not reiterate that these limits coin
‘cide with what the centralist party
'deemed desirable and aimed to
‘achieve.”
in short, the whole thing was a
sham. Liberal newspapers, infected
just now with dreams of a German
peace, yet representing a progres
sive element in Germany with which
good relations can be restored after
the war. are bitter in their denunci
ation of this trickery. The Tagehlatt
calls it a “tragic misconception which
‘must be cleared up as Sjon as pos
sible." but. of course, knows that
there was no misconception about i‘
except on the side of deluded reform
ers. It gets to the heart of the mat
ter by the bold declaration that "the
‘Reichstag must not be a ladder lead
‘ing to high positions, but must be an
'effective controling device for the
■government. The place foi- the peo
■pie’s representatives must be above
■not below, bureaucracy." It is ol
vious that the translation of b
members of the Reichstag to the b
reauergey does not constitute even i
beginning of such a reform.
LABOR AND STOCKHOLM
Embarrassing as the British gov
ernment may find the decision of M
Henderson in favor of representatio
at the Stockholm conference, there I
no doubt ns to the quality of his pa
triotism or as the honesty of his mo
tives. Moreover the arguments b:
which he -was able to swing the vol'
of the great labor meeting yesterdaj
in favor of participation are not lack
ing in weight, though they have then
weak spot. Their weight comes from
the fact that from his dual capacity
as labor representative and member of
the British war council or inner cab
inet he had peculiar opportuni
ties to learn the state df feel
ing in Russia in regard to the pro
posed international meeting, and not
improbably he measures more ac
curately than British conservatives the
importance which the Russian govern
ment attaches to the representation at
Stockholm of Russia’s alites.
The weak, point in his argument ap
pears to be in his admission that the
Russians are still insisting upon the
binding conference which he regards
as a menace to the allies. A meeting
projected before common ground had
been found in so vital a matter as this
might easily foment trouble instead of
promoting the unity among the allies
which Mr Henderson hopes to secure
by a frank discussion.
If this initial and somewhat serious
difficulty can be got over, the partici
pation of British delegates might per
haps in some respects prove helpful
It certainly cannot produce a peac<
program to which the war lords of th
central powers would assent. So lon
as Germany considers itself entitle
to a victor’s terms it will not give
moment's thought to such a prograi
as that outlined by the executive com
mittee of the labor party and pre
sented to .he meeting yesterday. Tba
includes reparation and restoration so
Belgium, a referendum on Alsace-Lor
raine, the transfer to Italy of Italian
territories under Austrian rule with
due regard for the rights of other nn
tionalities beyond the Adriatic, th
liberation of the oppressed subject nr
tions of Turkey, the union of Polar
and in general the right of nations
ties to decide their destinies. It d
dares that a victory for Germa,
would mean the defeat and destru
tion of democracy and liberty. Wha
ever may be thought of the resolutioi
in England, there can be no doubt r
to what will be thought of it by th
pan-Germans.
On the other hand, the labor pai i
disavows all desire to crush Get
many, politically or economically, an
stands opposed to all attempts t
transform the war into a war of con
quest. It is urged that by. presentlnr
the point of view of the British labor
party it may be possible not only to
reassure suspicious Russians upon
such points, but also to disseminate
in Germany, through the medium of
the German delegates, 'facts in regard
to the general situation and the, pur
poses of the allies which the German
people have not been allowed to learn,
and thus to strengthen the hands of
the minority socialists. This particu
lar hope may prove chimerical, since
German opinion seems much more
susceptible to battles than to argu
ments, but if kept to that the attempt
might do no harm.
More dubious is that part of th?
resolutions which asks it it is not
possible for the working people of all
countries to "bring this war to a sum
‘mary close, conformable to the prtn
'ciples of the international.” That is
essentially the Russian idea; the bol
shevik! no doubt sincerely believed
that by sabotage of the Russian war
machine they were helping to bring
the war to a summary close. The
result is that the war has been pro
tracted perhaps by many months,
with the needless loss of perhaps a
million lives, and the summary exe
cution of thousands of these deluded
-wretches. In any such appeal tor com
mon action by the proletariat for the
summary close of the war democ
racy Is at n fearful dlsadvuntage as
compared with a tightly organized