8/9/2019 February 8, 1915

1/4

4 S 6

T h e a-ti

n

[Vol.

100 No.

26

The ritics of Secretary Daniels, bein$

driven from one position afte r anot her, arc

now making a standagainsthim on thc

ground thathehas personallyblasted a1

hope of esta blish ing that centralized, respon

sible military control which is the greatesi

need of the navy. Ex-Secretary Meyer ha:

again joined

in

the hue and cry by demand

ing a naval budget of

a

large lump sum fro=

Congress,

to

be expended by theSecretarJ

and his naval advisers alone as they see fit;

and also a nat iona l council of defence, which

shall all by itself formulate the defence pol,

icies of the nation. The Navy Departmenl

clique, which is so upset over the failure oi

Secretary Daniels toappoint Rear-Admira

Fisk e to the new position of Chief of Naval

Operations,

is

also th e changes on

thi s question; while th e New York

declares that

if

Secretary Daniels had

onls

consented, th e navy would now have to all

intentsand purposes a General Staff. Bui

theunpatrioticNort h Carolinian has self.

ishly, it is alleged, begrudged surrendering

that nexp ert civilian- control hrough hie

own office.

Well,

if

Mr. Daniels had done any less, 11

strikes us thathe would have been faith -

less to

a

fundamental policy

of

this Govern,

ment. It

is

precisely ivilian ontrol oveI

things military and naval. The founders of

the Republic wrote th at policy into the Con.

stitution because they had had some person.

a1 experiences with Brit ish milit ary control

which m ade them particularly insistent that

civilian officials should be in charge. To

turn over the framing of our army and navy

policies to-day to th e proposed nationa l coun-

cil, comprising, as we understand it. a ma-

jority of mili tary and nav al men, would be

as dangerous a step towards militarismas

could well be imagined. Buttresse d by the

absurd heory hatmilitaryandnaval ex-

perts should decide how much money we

should expend for army andnavy, when they

ar e in wise charged wit h the responsibil-

ity either raisin g the money therefor,

for ascertainingwhat is the . ea l public

sentimentas to armaments-andwar poli

des , we might then have a situation precise

ly nalogous to that of Germany to-day

There, the German General Staff dicta tes

tc

the Reichstag what

it

wants; and,more

over, form ulat es he publicopinion ofhc

nation matters military. A s he war has

clearly shown, the German General Staff of.

ficers are the masters of the nation, and

its

servants.

Exactly the same thing

is

what be

hind the proposal to substitute w ith us com

plete military control for civilian. Th e Gen

era1 Board of the Navy has raged becausc

some

of

the Secretariesof the Navy and Con

gress regularlyhave refused to follow t s

recommendations as to the size of the navy

They have preferred t o put heir inexperl

opinion above the expert.

OUT

judgment

theyhave been both wise andpatriotic i n

so doing. The exp ert in any field is subJeci

to bias; and the mili tary and naval experts

parti cula rly take counsel of t heir fears of at.

tack from one source another. From

them ema nate many a laru ms of war, while

their narrow training, totally different from

that of the civilian legislator the civilians

charged with the carryin g on of foreign and

nationa l policies, often makes them danger.

ous

nationa l advisers. We know what a cry

would go UP

if

it should be proposed t o turn

over the conduct of

our

national affairs to a

general staff of physicians and surgeons, on

the ground that he dangers from

immigrants, from the spread

f

insanity, and

the annual waste

of

human life due to pre.

ventable disease, made necessary theplac

ing n heir hands of national policies

and heunrestricted xpenditure

of

some

250.000,000 a year.

As for ex-Secretary Meyerss proposal that

Congress vote a lump to be @xxpendedan-

nually th e Navy Department, this is s o

absurd as h ardly to m erit serious treatment.

Congress would never onsent to it, and

neither would the American people, partlcu-

larly not a t hishour when the European

militaryexpertsare so completely discred-

ited

in

their prophecies as to the insurance

value of l arge armaments, and as to the ac-

tual happenings in he progress of hostili-

ties. Could experts be more horoughly dis-

comfited tha n he war-lords of th e German

General Staff? Pro-Germans in plenty do not

hesitate to say

to us

that

it

has completely

overreached itself, that its Belgian policy

was a crime, and th at

its

chief folly has been

due to a total inability to understand what

was involved

in

natio nal policies and nation-

al enti men t abroad. Never were mili tarJ

men

so

fortunat ely situated : everyt hing war

in their favor ina nation which obeyed theil

slightes t wish, and never hav e men writ

ten themselves down as hopeless blunder,

ers.

We do not believe

for

a moment

that

with

this

warning example before them the citi-

zens of thi s country will be tempted to

t u r n

over itsmilitaryandnav al affairs to uni.

formed diagnosticians.

Wherever

it

theBirth of the N

tion ilm arouses widespread ndignation

In

Boston the excitement has been at wh

heat, because of a series of hearings befo

Mayor, Governor, and a committee of t

Legislature. A judgehas been found w

authority and courage enough to cut out t

most objectionable scene. The press has be

full of arguments for andagainst he fi

and he proposed legislation. Many clera

men have preached about t he play; and

PresidentEliot, peaking n a Cambrid

church, was one of those who protest

against its falsification of history. Nev

before have t he colored people of Bost

been so united and determined, appear

to better advantage, and their white frien

have rallied

in

great force to their aid.

Walsh. ex-Congressman MeCall, and Eieu

Gov. Cushing have spoken out emphatica

against ermittinghe lay to continu

though th e Mayor sided wit h the produce

-as th e Mayor of New York has failed

recognize inhisutterances hegravity

thesituation, to rise to he emergenc

being contentwith hepromise

of

certa

slight excisions. which appe ar to be of lit

value. The playcontinues to do

devilish work of misrepresentationand

arousing race hatred.

That Mayor Mitchel has had little leg

authority to deal with the play is admitte

though the re a re differences of opinion as

Justwhat powerswere available. But hi

Blleged lack of authority is to be remedf

b y anordinan ce now before th e Board

Aldermen empower th e Commissioner

Licenses to revoke, suspend, ann ulan

moving-picture license for cause after

Mal.* The ordi nanc e furth er read s:

shall be taken before the

Commissio

e r of Licenses notice of not less th

two 2) days to the proprietor, manager,

in charge of said alace. to show cau

why such license should not revoked, a

nulled, suspended. The Commissioner

Licenses shall hear the proofs and allegatio

In each case, and determine the same, a

my glace the license for which shall ha

beenevoked, annulled, suspended sh

not thereafter be licensed again to the sam

licensee within one year, under the provisio

of said sections. On any examination befo

a Commissioner of Licenses, pursuant to

notice to show cause as aforesaid, the accus

party may be a witness In

his

own behalf.

This

plainly const itute s he Commission

of Licenses a censor

of

all moving-pictu

plays, precisely as the Mayor of every tow

in Massachusetts, except Boston, now h

similar powers. That he plan ha s its d

fects

is a

Commissioner

of

L

8/9/2019 February 8, 1915

2/4

May

6

19151

censes with bad judgmentmight

considerable amount

of

harm.

But his risk 1s inevitable with any cen

sorship. and bill has as yet been suggest

ed

t o

the Massachusetts Legislature-whict

is

bent passing some measu re before i;

adjourns-that is free rom defects of

kind another, save the roposal to putBos

ton on an equal footing with the other citie

of Massachusetts. Th e tru th

is

that this nev

means for public amusement and educatio1

has brought with it grave perils which wt

are only just beginning to realize, for side

by s ide with its educational possibilities arc

the danger s of unrestr icted propaganda.

the Rev. Dr. Crothers has pointedout,

W I

have lulled ourselves into

a

sense of secur

ity by repeat ing to ourselves that the pas1

at least is secure. But along comes

thi:

play, which

is

not only designed to makq

large sums f o r its promoters, but is admit

tedly a deliberate propaganda

t o

degrade anc

injure ten millions of citizens, besides mis

representing some

of

the noblest figures

iI

past, Stevens, Sumner. and Lincoln, anc

perverting history, i f only the onesided

ness of its portrayal. Now, let u s suppose

as Crothers has lso suggested. that

0th

ers inspired by this shameful example t u n

to religiouspropaganda, and epresent

thc

horrible murder ing of Catholics a t Drogheds

by Cromwell, or th e massacre of Protestants

St. Bartholomews night-what the n?

7

.~

Undoubtedly, the ortures

of

the Inquisi

tion would make effective capital against the

Pope at Rome; and

if

moving pictures hac

existed in 1898, we might have seen

a st11

more vindictive anti-Spanish crusade

b y

films of battle, devastation , reconcen,

trado camps. Pic tures

of

Russian pogromE

would make plenty of money, yet bit

ter national and racial antipathies . Obvious

ly,

the feeling th at would re sult from a r e

ljgious film-propaganda might lead

to

most

serious breaches of t he peace.

If

a mild, gen

tle, humorous philosopher like Dr. Crothers

adm its hat he offending film in Boston

stirredhisheart omutinyand rage, the

potentialities for evil in less-balanced minds

need no stressing.

What

makes hematter

worse is that it is not a question of dealing

with

a

single theatrical production, f o r the

film can be duplicated so tha t he objec-

tionable performance may be going

forty more cities at the same moment. It

is

not surprising, in view

of this

power for

evil, tha t the United States Supreme Court

February 23. last in three unanimous de-

cisions upheld the laws

of

Ohio and Kansas

creating official

censors.

We would have,

T h e N a t i o n

it

said, to sh ut

our

eyes to the facts of t h