Survey Associates.

The Survey (Volume 58) online

. (page 4 of 130)
Online LibrarySurvey AssociatesThe Survey (Volume 58) → online text (page 4 of 130)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


the situation lies in the fact that the supply rate of material
requirements in the early stages of our emergency are now
the determining factor in placing our forces in the field
since man power can be assembled much more rapidly than
material power. The condition of supplies tends to
accentuate the importance of the force which can be
equipped immediately either from stocks on hand or from
open market purchases. Our plans provide -for 2,OOO,OOO
men but if only 100,000 of them can be equipped for the
field within a period of one month the defensive ability of
that 100,000 becomes of critical importance.

NOW for the Mobilization of our man power. The
Universal Draft Act passed by Congress provides
first for the Regular Army and the President at once directs
the raising by voluntary enlistment or draft, organizing,
officering and equipping of the increments of the Regular
Army provided by the National Defense Act and to raise
all organizations of the Regular Army including those added
by such increments to the maximum enlisted strength au-
thorized by law. By the touch of this magic wand the units
which are now at about half strength receive full body



and blood and those inactive units that are non-existent,
except on paper, are resurrected and given life all even-
tually, after many months, to become efficient fighting units
in our Field Armies.

Next it provides for the National Guard:

(a) The National Guard is part of the militia of the
United States and as such it may be "called" into the serv-
ice of the United States by the President.

TELEGRAM

Hon. (name), Governor of (State).

In order to protect the United States against invasion, the
President has thought proper to exercise the authority vested in
him by the Constitution and laws and to call out the National
Guard necessary for that purpose. I am in consequence instructed
by the President to call into the service of the United States, as

of and from the day of , nineteen hundred

and , through you, the following National Guard Or-
ganizations of the State of and all enlisted members

(if the National Guard Reserves assigned thereto, which the

President desires shall be assembled at their respective armories

on the date specified and await the orders of the War Department.

(List of Organizations)

, Secretary of War

(b) Congress having specifically authorized in its Act
the use of armed land forces in excess of the Regular Army,
the President is authorized to change by mears of the
"Draft," the status of the National Guard and National
Guard Reserves from that of Militia to that of another
component of the Army of the United States, divested of
the militia character. This draft, after quoting the author-
ity therefor, reads in part:

"!. _ President of the United States, hereby

draft into the military service of the United States as of and from

the day of , nineteen hundred and , all

members of the National Guard and all enlisted members of the
National Guard Reserves of the several States and of the District
of Columbia, who were called into the service of the United States
by instructions issued by me on "



In the third place, by authority conferred by this Act of
Congress the President makes use of Organized Reserves
and by direction and because of wise decentralization Corps
Area Commanders issue the necessary orders, ordering to
"active duty," units of the Organized Reserves within their
jurisdiction as provided for in their Corps Area Mobiliza-
tion Plans based upon the War Department's Plans. The
order specifies the date upon which it will become effective
and upon which units and individuals will assemble at their
home rendezvous or mobilization points.

Finally under the Universal Draft authorization the
President selects his Provost Marshal General and pro-
ceeds to raise by draft, organize and equip a force of 500,-
OOO men ; and in his discretion and at such time as he
may determine, and in the same manner, he proceeds to
raise, organize, equip and begin the training of an addi-
tional force of 500,000 men.

The "draft" thus provided for is based upon liability to
military service of all male citizens or male persons not
alien enemies, who have declared their intention to become
citizens, between the ages of 21 and 30 years. And if the
war lasts long enough the age will be increased in later
"drafts" to include 45 years of age if necessary! Quotas
for the several States are determined in proportion to the
population and credit given for the number of men who are
already in military service. To secure them the President
creates and establishes through the Governors local draft
boards, approximately one to every 30,000 population, con-
sisting of three or more members, (Continued on page 50)



The New Balance of Justice

Where Shall the United States Throw Its Weight?



By JOSEPH P. CHAMBERLAIN



IN 1910 President Taft voiced a sentiment
which had been rapidly growing in the
United States, that all questions between
nations which cannot be settled by negotia-
tion should be referred to courts of arbi-
tration for decision. Soon after Lord Grey,
debating naval armament in the House of Commons, added
an international note. If Great Britain and the United
States should take such an engagement, he said :

I think it would probably lead to their following it up by
an agreement that they would join with each other in any case
in which one only had a quarrel with a third power by which
arbitration was refused. And more and more the tendency
which is growing in the world to recognize that war between
two great countries must not only be a serious thing for them
but must be a serious thing for neutral powers through the
disturbance it causes, the more and more . . . nations would
come to the conclusion as between themselves, that they were
not going to fight, but that it was their interest to join to-
gether to keep the peace of the world.

The World War soon came to prove how clearly the
British statesman saw the issue, and the rapid development
of machinery for peaceful settlement of international dis-
putes since righting ceased, is there to show that some of the
nations of the world, at least, have learned the lesson. For
that machinery is being constructed not only on the basis
of an agreement for arbitration between two governments,
but it is being founded on the wide basis that it is to the
interest of other nations than the parties that they observe
their agreements to turn to peaceful means of settling their
disputes.

It is striking enough that Germany and her neighbors by
the pact of Locarno of 1925 "undertake to settle by peace-
ful means and in the manner laid down herein, all ques-
tions of every kind which may arise between them and which
it may not be possible to settle by the normal methods of
diplomacy;" it is far more striking that Great Britain and
Italy agree to make common cause against the government
which breaks its contract and commits an act of aggression
against its neighbor. This is a new kind of alliance and a
new principle in the policy of Europe. It takes the place
of the old system of securing peace and the interests of the
peoples of the old continent through the balance of power,
a system which necessarily led to "bigger and better" armies
and navies and air fleets, so that the balance might be tipped
to one side or the other. The new system substitutes the
balance of justice for the balance of power; organizes the
great powers of Europe not only to preserve peace, but to
make that peace the sole kind which can be lasting, peace
through justice. It progresses far beyond the stage marked
by the arbitration treaty, it expresses in concrete form the
idea of Lord Grey that it is to the "interest of the nations
to join together to keep the peace of the world."

The influence of the new system will not be felt in Europe



alone. It is in conflicts between governments in that con-
tinent that the great wars have originated which have spread
to all the world, and the governments which are trying the
great experiment are working for the Americas, for Asia,
for Africa, as well as for themselves. When the Locarno
treaties were entrusted to the Council of the League, the
delegate of Uruguay said, "It is not only Europe which
should rejoice at the execution of these agreements, but the
whole world. The work of Locarno is of concern to all
mankind."

Locarno is based on the League of Nations. The Coun-
cil of the League is the body which finally decides questions
which the parties are not willing to submit to judicial de-
cision or arbitration, and the pact itself depends on the en-
trance of Germany into the League. The Covenant of the
League, as do the Pacts of Locarno, rests on the common
interest in peace, on the common duty to assume a share
in the burden of assuring that peace. It provides a means
of settling disputes and binds its members to join in punish-
ing those states which go to war instead of following the
procedure they have agreed upon. That procedure includes
judicial settlements of questions of rights, investigation by
conciliation commissions of other disputes, and settlement
by the Council of the League. It puts into effect a policy
of mutual insurance against war from which we shall large-
ly profit.

Not only is it clear from an experience of over nearly a
century and a half, that a great war in Europe is certain
to involve our country and that in consequence we are in-
terested in preventing a conflagration in that continent, but
the expense and risk of increasing armaments can only be
stopped if another means be found for guaranteeing national
security than battleships and Big Berthas. The Congress
of the United States, when under the shadow of the Great
War, expressed clearly in a statute approved by the Presi-
dent on August 29, 1926, this last interest in international
cooperation for peace. The United States "realizes that no
single nation can disarm, and that without a common agree-
ment upon the subject every considerable power must main-
tain a relative standing in military strength," but that com-
mon agreement, experience shows, must depend on some-
thing more than agreements between two states to arbitrate
differences. The weight of the common interest in peace
must be thrown into the scale.

Europe has gone forward since 1916 and has put into
binding agreements the aspirations of President Taft and
the American Congress. The United States will profit by
the protection of the insurance against war in the compact of
the Covenant of the League and of the Pact of Locarno,
but this country is not providing its share of the premium.

It is not necessary that the United States become a
guarantor under the Pact of Locarno or even that this coun-
try adhere to the League Covenant in order to put her great



17



18



THE NEW BALANCE OF JUSTICE



influence behind these contracts of insurance against war.
Even before the United States entered the war, an Amer-
ican organization, the League to Enforce Peace, had devel-
oped the economic weapon for the war against war. The
machinery of international courts or conciliation councils
was recommended as a substitute for force, and in the third
article of its program the League says:

The signatory powers shall jointly use forthwith both their
economic and military forces against any one of their number
that goes to war, or commits acts of hostility, against another
of the signatories before any question arising shall be submitted
as provided

in arbitration and conciliation treaties.

The idea of economic action was taken over by the drafts-
men of the Covenant. In Article 16, the members of the
League agree that if any member "resort to war in dis-
regard" of its agreement to submit a dispute to the Court
of conciliation or arbitration, the other members

. . . undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all
trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse
between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-
breaking state, and the prevention of all financial, commercial
or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-
breaking state and the nationals of any other state, whether
a member of the League or not.

The effectiveness of the economic sanction depends on its
inclusiveness. If a great state like the United States refuses
to apply the rule, then supplies of money and goods will
continue to flow into the covenant-breaking state and the
business will be more profitable to its citizens in proportion
to the degree in which other governments refuse to allow
their people to go to the aid of the offender against the
common interest in peace. For under the principles of neu-
trality the power of the United States would be behind the
right of its citizens to trade with the offending state pro-
vided that the goods shipped were not contraband or bound
to a blockaded destination. Whether the goods are so liable
to capture frequently depends on the views which the two
governments take of the rights of their citizens. Naturally
a belligerent government in command of the sea will be
reluctant to take extreme measures against the protest of
so strong a country as the United States, and consequently
an economic blockade will be less effectual if Americans
demand that they be judged by the old rules.

The principles of neutrality are based on equal treat-
ment of both belligerents within the law. It was not pos-
sible in past times for one country to pass judgment on the
right in a war, since there was no objective standard by
which a nation could be judged, and which pointed out the
wrong-doer as between the fighting powers. This situation
has been substantially modified by the Covenant and the
Pact of Locarno. The nations which have signed those
agreements bind themselves to submit their differences to
peaceful settlement by a definite procedure, and if they do
not, that they shall be treated as covenant-breaking. Clear-
ly, then, a nation which refuses to carry out its own agree-
ment, made not to one other country but to the fifty-six
nations in the League or to the Powers of Europe signatory
to the Pact of Locarno, puts itself in a position where it
should not be treated as of equal right with the nations
banded together to defend world peace and the sanctity
of contract.

The test is objective, and will usually be clear. The
United States can apply it through its own agencies and



on its own interpretation. The President issues at the
outbreak of every war in which the United States is not
involved, a neutrality proclamation which lays down the
rules which will govern our people in their dealings with
both sides. So far as they act within those rules, they will
have the protection of the government, but they act outside
of them at their own peril. Where one of the belligerents
was bound by the Covenant or the Pact of Locarno, or any
similar agreement, and attacked without carrying out the
agreement, then the President on finding that the covenant-
breaking state had no justification for its action, could add
to the neutrality proclamation a warning to Americans that
this government would not protect them in any trade with
the wrong-doing state. If the covenant-defending state
had command of the sea, this independent action on the
part of the United States would be sufficient to stop trade,
but a further step, again not involving complications with
foreign governments, would be to apply an embargo in the
ports of the United States against any goods 'for the covenant-
breaking state. If, however, the covenant-breaking state
were a sea power, then the embargo would become necessary
at once, and the United States could further refuse to per-
mit warships or merchant vessels of the guilty state to coal
or to secure supplies in our ports.

In neither case would there need to be any interference
with normal commercial life within our territory. The
belligerent government or its merchants might be permitted
to buy goods or carry on business here without inter-
ference except that the goods purchased must be prevented
from leaving our shores to aid the government in carrying
on its unjust war. An embargo would need an act of
Congress which could either be passed at the outbreak of
each war, or better, as a general authority to the President
to be exercised when he finds that a belligerent state has
refused to carry out its obligations.

Such power has been given him to stop shipment of muni-
tions of war to American countries in which domestic vio-
lence exists, and under it both President Wilson and Presi-
dent Coolidge have acted to prevent the breaking out of
revolution in Mexico, or to circumscribe the spread of a
revolution under way. Similarly, the President could be
authorized to act promptly in the event of the outbreak of
a "war between states defending and states breaking a cove-
nant for peaceful settlement, subject, if the Congress de-
sired, to submit his action to their approval. This proce-
dure would involve no obligation to foreign powers, and
the United States could withdraw its prohibition if it be-
came later convinced that its action had been mistaken,
that justice required equal treatment of both sides.

Such action would be far from that which members of
the League have assumed under Article 16 of the Cove-
nant, but it would be sufficient to assure the moral support
of the richest and, perhaps the strongest, member of the
international community, to those who were upholding or-
ganized peace. The position of the United States would
be stronger if Congress passed an act declaring the policy
of this country, authorizing the President to apply it when
need arose. Then states considering action in breach of
their covenant would be advised of the position of the
United States and the effect of the application of its modified
form of economic sanction on the fortunes of war. Re-
flection would be probable, and with reflection, restraint.

A more definite solution of the (Continued on page 49)



MURALS

of the
BEATITUDES

By Eugene Savage




MILITARY pomp and conquest have no glorification in the twelve
fine mural paintings designed for the colonnade of the Elks
national war memorial building in Chicago. They honor the merci-
ful, the peacemakers, those that hunger and thirst after righteous-
ness; for these best represent the unselfish purpose of the United
States in the World War, according to the artist's conception.
In this panel the Sermon on the Mount rises above a militant
Justice. Mr. Savage's interpretation of two of the beatitudes follows




They Shall Be Filled"



XKJfi! LIBRARY CUMMI55K




rhey Shall Inherit the Earth"



Imperializing the Monroe Doctrine



By PARKER THOMAS MOON



OUR Latin-American policy is under fire. It
is under such telling bombardment by Sen-
ator Borah, by liberal journals, and by those
whom Richard Washburn Child amiably
describes as "the chorus of calamity-howl-
ers," that a once eminently laconic Presi-
dent has been moved to defend it in his official messages and
through his not at all laconic "Spokesman." He has asked
the press to give the "correct" presentation of the "Amer-
ican attitude." And to make easier the task of journal-
ism, the State Department has alternated with the Spokes-
man in issuing one "correct" explanation after another to
defend a single item of the Administration's Latin-Amer-
ican policy the Nicaraguan maneuver. To dismiss this
unwonted official volubility with the sophisticated comment,
"Qui s'excuse, s' accuse," would be easy enough, but it would
not answer the questions Americans are asking themselves.
Is it fair to accuse the United States of imperialism?
Are we not simply following out the consequences of the
Monroe Doctrine?

On both questions sharp division of opinion 'exists, chiefly
because terms such as "imperialism" and "Monroe Doc-
trine" are used to cover a multitude of meanings.

If we define "imperialism" as a malignant form of
megalomania peculiar to Europe, one of our questions is
quickly dismissed. That, in essence, is the way it is dis-
posed of in highly authorit'ative circles. In his memo/able
Armistice Day Address, President Coolidge minced no
words in declaring that America "cherishes no Imperial-
istic designs." Less bluntly, the president of the New York
Stock Exchange demolished what he styled "the myth of
American financial imperialism" by showing that the im-
perialist union of high finance and high politics was a pre-
war phenomenon limited to Europe, and to the continent
of Europe at that. The distinguished master of fiction and
diplomacy whose phrase was quoted above, Richard Wash-
burn Child, writing in a very popular weekly which also
combines fiction with international affairs, has very vehe-
mently rebuked those who "bellow at their own United
States the meaningless word 'imperialist.' '

YET that "meaningless word" has several perfectly defi-
nite meanings in the neglected dictionary, and a very
distinct significance in the world of real politics. It means
empire-building and the more difficult business of empire-
holding. Specifically it is used today to describe the extension
of ownership or control by the Great Powers (and some
small) over weaker, "backward" or undeveloped countries.
European powers have gained and extended their colo-
nial empires by conquest and annexation, by purchase and
treaty cession, but also by subtler methods such as the
"protectorate," the "veiled protectorate," the "sphere of in-
.terest," the "leased port," military "occupation," financial
"control," and "peaceful penetration." In Europe, the
mask of such subtleties has been worn transparently thin.



Tunis may be only a French "protectorate," but it is uni-
versally regarded as a French possession. British map-
makers do not leave out protectorates. Even German
"penetration" of Turkey, before the great debacle, was rec-
ognized for what it was. On this side the Atlantic, how-
ever, the subtleties are less familiar. There are still some
Americans to whom "imperialism" means outright annexa-
tion, and to whom "intervention," or "receivership," or
"lease," can not be at all synonymous with that sinister word.

A SUMMARY comparison of established facts ought to
^~Y. dissipate all doubt on this score. Examine the methods
of European imperialism and of American policy. Military
conquest was the means by which England won the Sudan,
and parts of India and Burma; and by which France won
Algeria; and Italy, Libia; the list could easily be extended.
By way of comparison, the United States took Porto Rico,
Guam, and the Philippines by the sword, but in the Philip-
pines at least the sword was gold-plated, for conquest was
covered by payment of twenty million dollars to Spain.
The method of "leasing," rather than annexing, territory
has been used by the United States more frequently to
acquire the Panama Canal Zone, the Guantanamo naval
base, the Corn Islands, and the naval base rights in the
Gulf of Fonseca. Leases had previously been used by Ger-
many, Italy and England to acquire the East African coast
from Zanzibar, and by Germany, Russia, England, and
France to acquire naval bases on the Chinese coast. If we
turn to the still more ingenious methods of "occupation,"
"receiverships," and "advisers," the parallel still holds.
American "occupation" of the Dominican Republic from
1916 to 1924, and of Haiti since 1915, and of Nicaragua
from 1912 to 1925 and from 1926 to who-kno\vs-when, may
be matched by the British "occupation" of Egypt from 1882
on, Russian "occupation" of Manchuria after the Boxer
trouble, and Italian "occupation" of Dodekanesia. If
there were space, one might even argue, as I have attempted
elsewhere,* that the right of exclusive intervention, the
right on occasion to veto foreign concessions, and the de-
velopment of financial penetration have long been recog-
nized in Europe as earmarks of a "sphere of interest," albeit
in America they may be considered merely corollaries of
the Monroe Doctrine. The meaning of the recent policy of
the United States in the zone between the Rio Grande and
the Canal begins to dawn on one's mind only after a cer-
tain familiarity has been acquired with spheres of interest
in Persia and in China.

In a word, the United States has indulged in what was
called imperialism when Europeans practised it. And in-
dulged effectively! Since the Civil War we have acquired,
outright, over 700,000 square miles ; and we have acquired
control over dependencies aggregating, roughly, 2OO.OOO



Online LibrarySurvey AssociatesThe Survey (Volume 58) → online text (page 4 of 130)