their successors in men who increased the nation's speed and power to make war. France has done likewise. With such a demonstration of popular support as the Administration has received in the tremendous over-subscription to the recent Liberty Loan, its hands are certainly free to adopt any measures that will promote our best efficiency at this time.

III

The conduct of the war is in the hands of the Administration in a way peculiar to this country. In any other democracy, or constitutional monarchy, the legislative body which has granted money for the prosecution of a war has the right, and as a matter of fact practises the right, to find out from the Executive what he is trying to do and what is being accomplished. With us that is not done. A committee of Congress can summon witnesses, including members of the Cabinet, but it is not done often enough for Congress to keep itself informed.

Let us take the matter of military preparations. In the early months of 1916 the President made a tour of the West, speaking in favor of military preparedness. It was a new departure for him and the people were a little surprised. Congress was not convinced-but Congress was acting in the dark. The President knew things about Germany's attitude toward us which other people did not know. The President gave up Judge Garrison and preparedness and invited Mr. Baker to become Secretary of War and accept the Hay bill.

do not know how much Mr. Baker knew about the possibility of war. We do know that he We do know that he did nothing for thirteen months to rectify our condition, in spite of urging by the army, the press, and various patriotic societies. He became active only after we declared war. His failure to get ready cost us a year's time. Whether Mr. Baker failed because he was convinced that the President would keep us out of war or for some other reason makes little difference. In most other countries where Cabinet members are judged by the intelligence they show in foreseeing and meeting crises, he would have lost his position.

It is not worth while to recall this past history except to point out one curious fact. Mr. Baker in his failure to prepare was responsible to no one but the President, and the Président was responsible to no one but the next election; and he could withhold or

publish either to Congress or the people the only essential facts on which his conduct could be judged. This is not Mr. Wilson's fault. As a matter of fact he is in favor of responsible government. But this makes all the more glaring the fact that under our system it has not been practised.

Now that is what happened to give the Germans one year's respite from us. The next question is, What is going on now?

There is no one to ask Mr. Baker how many men he intends to have in France in 1918 and to check up the actual progress to see if it fits the programme or to check the programme to see if it is comparatively a proper effort with what was done in Canada, England, or Australia.

There is no one interested in the length of the delay in ordering rifles or heavy artillery. In getting appropriations there was a general programme of amounts laid out, but the specifications as to time were not definite and no one is checking. them up. No one knows whether Mr. Baker will be months ahead or behind his schedule for big guns or whether his schedule is for 1918, 1919, or 1920.

The present private conduct of the war by the President, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Daniels is not altogether assuring because, with the best intentions in the world, they made the colossal blunder of doing nothing before the war, despite many warnings both at home and from Germany. Without some responsibility to Congress they may not be doing enough or working quickly enough now.

It is true that in the last few years Congress has not had a very enviable reputation for ability. Yet if Congress has the power to vote money it must have the power to see that the money is spent effectively. At present the Administration conducts the war practically without immediate responsibility to any one, and there is good reason to think that our training programme is behind-hand, our shipbuilding very much behind, and our manufacture of artillery in similar condition.

In almost everything that is useful in war but not exclusively useful in war we have done well. We have made shoes and blankets, and raised men and money. But in the first requisites on the firing line-trained men in large numbers, rifles, munitions, and artilleryour record needs watching and acceleration. As yet we have no Lloyd-George among us, and there are signs that we need one.

Tammany's Victory and the War

N

EW YORK started its career as a greatly enlarged and consolidated city in 1897, by electing a complete Tammany Administration. The results that followed were precisely what had been generally foreseen. The mayor chosen at that time, Robert A. Van Wyck, promptly abdicated all his powers over appointments and legislation to Mr. Richard Croker, then the captain of the Tammany ship. Because of the public indecency, inefficiency, wastefulness, and widespread corruption that ensued, New York City has never had an outright Tammany Administration since. The last twenty years in America's largest city have furnished a striking illustration, on a great scale, of that struggle for honest and efficient municipal government which has taken place in all parts of the country. These twenty years have witnessed, both in New York City and elsewhere, an almost unbelievable improvement in general civic conditions, and the revolution has perhaps attained its highest expression in the last four years of Mayor Mitchel's Administration. In both its external aspects and its inner spiritual existence the New York City of to-day bears so few resemblances to the Tammanyized city of twenty years ago that there seemed little likelihood that this organization could ever regain its power. Yet, twenty years after Tammany's last sweeping victory, New York again places in power the forces that gave the city such an evil reputation, not only in this country but in Europe. This disintegrating organization returns to power at a time when the Nation is facing the greatest crisis in its history, and when the largest American city should assemble its finest energies for the hard times that lie ahead. The whole proceeding recalls the New York of 1861, whose Tammany mayor, Fernando Wood, sympathized so much with the South that he sent a message to the City Council recommending that the city secede from the Union and, with Staten Island and Long Island, form a new state to be known as Tri-Insula. History records that the Tammany city fathers solemnly endorsed this proposal!

Though New York had a disloyal government in the Civil War, the city itself was not disloyal; the fact was that the loyal Unionists enlisted in such overwhelming numbers in the armies that the town was left at the mercy

of Southern sympathizing and seditious mobs. New York's enormous popular subscriptions to both the Liberty Loans prove that the city is not disloyal now. In saying this, it is not necessary to blink the fact that the disloyal vote had much to do with Mr. Mitchel's defeat. The real facts in the present situation are evident enough. In 1897 Tammany won against the decent citizens in New York simply because those citizens were divided into two camps. Whenever the anti-Tammany elements unite on a single candidate they almost invariably overthrow a united Tammany organization. The same great principle of statesmanship, therefore, controls the Tammany leaders that directs the policy of that other great autocracy, the Hapsburg Monarchy: Divide et Imperadivide and rule. The peculiar situation that existed this year gave the Tammany strategists—and there are no better outside the German army-their great opportunity. Mr. Murphy, great political general that he is, proceeded to profit by the disorganized state of the enemy, and to impose upon the city the particular type of mayor that would best serve the Tammany ends. Mayor Mitchel's vigilant and energetic Americanism had offended that minority of Pro-Germans, Pacifists, and England-haters whose votes, thrown against him, would supply the balance of power which would land the most typical Tammany candidate in the mayor's office. A series of campaign complications, part accidental and part designed, produced one out-and-out Tammany candidate and three anti-Tammany candidates. Under these conditions the most absurd Tammany man-and a more absurd candidate than John F. Hylan has never appeared in the city's history-must win and the finest anti-Tammany candidate-and the city has never had a finer one than Mr. Mitchelmust lose. The part that the Pacifists and ProGermans played is evident in the large vote given Mr. Morris Hillquit, the Socialist candidate, who openly boasted that he had bought no Liberty Bonds and who adopted, as his platform, a declaration that the United States should immediately end the war. In the election of 1916 the Socialist candidates polled 30,000 votes in New York City, but this year Mr. Hillquit-who was born in Riga, Russia, where he was known as Moritz Hillkowitzobtained more than 140,000. This increased vote cannot indicate that Socialism has spread to this extent in New York in one short year;

it clearly registers the pacifism and proGermanism and anti-Britishism that necessarily exist in a city that contains 700,000 or 800,000 people of German origin, about as many of Irish origin, and nearly 1,000,000 former subjects of the Russian Empire.

Probably other influences worked against Mr. Mitchel, but these were quite sufficient to determine the result. Tammany's triumph is deplorable, but there is no occasion for despair. New York is still a loyal part of the Nation and will do more than her share in the prevailing struggle. Mr. Hylan, immediately on his election, issued a public statement in which he announced his whole-hearted support of the Administration in its war policy, declared that he was in favor of fighting the war to a finish, and repudiated any suggestion that his sympathies were pro-German. This statement has produced an excellent impression, and it is to be hoped that Mr. Hylan's course will show that he has been sincere in making it.

F

Von Hertling on America

ROM 1870 up to the breaking out of the present war the German Empire had had five chancellors, the period of office averaging about nine years for each incumbent. In the last three troublous years three men have so far occupied this post, which is apparently becoming about as insecure as the premiership of France or Italy. This fact in itself discloses that the spirit of unrest is disturbing Germany and that the smoothly working autocracy, moving armies and navies and peoples by the simple fiat of the Imperial will, no longer possesses an unquestioned grip upon the nation. More significant still are the circumstances under which the latest appointee, Count George F. von Hertling, entered upon his office. The new Chancellor deliberated several days before acceding to the Imperial will, using the interim to consult the leaders of the Reichstag, and to assure himself that he would have a parliamentary majority supporting his programme. Such a proceeding is unprecedented in Germany. One can imagine Bismarck seeking parliamentary support before assuming the chancellorship! When requested by the Emperor Frederick, on the death of William I, to continue his work as chief minister, the old apostle of blood and iron exacted first a promise that there should be nothing in the new

régime that suggested parliamentary rule. Yet now we have a German statesman, asked to assume the headship of the State, consuming four or five days negotiating with the parliamentary chiefs before acceding to his Imperial master's will!

We get only the most confused picture of internal affairs in Germany; yet a few definite episodes like this show that, after all, the popular will is making its influence felt. Concerning Von Hertling himself and his so-called "policy" we have fragmentary and contradictory accounts. The only definite information obtainable is the speech which he delivered on October 23d, a few days before his elevation, in the Bavarian Parliament. This has the utmost interest for Americans. The present Chancellor reviewed the question of peace and could see only one obstacle-the United States. All that France could gain by fighting further, he said, was Alsace-Lorraine, and France must know by now that any such aspiration was the wildest dream. Russia had been fighting mainly for Constantinople, and had already abandoned all hope of ever obtaining it. One influence, and one influence only, was keeping up the war-that the war-that was America. Von Hertling pictured Germany as the protector of Europe; the issue in the war had now developed into saving Europe, including England, from the rapacity of the United States! "If the Entente victory," said the speaker, "were to be procured only with the help of America this would mean that America henceforward takes England's place. America would with her fleet dominate the seas and direct the course of the frontiers of world trade. America, as is already the case in the war, would remain after the war a mighty lender of money, and would take the place of England as the banker of the world.

"America against Europe-that is the character which the war threatens to assume more and more. Consequently the Central Powers and their allies are no longer fighting for themselves alone; they are fighting for the independence of Europe against American empire, which has become too strong. And with them are fighting the neutral States, which will not allow themselves to be forced into war against the Central Powers, which are defending Europe."

As a German statesman, Hertling is apparently developing true to type. That a nation may enter a war for any other purpose than

"domination," directing the frontiers of world trade," or "empire" is an idea that never penetrates the German mind. Of course, the purpose of this speech is to sow fear and distrust of this country in the minds of the Allies. German emissaries have for three years filled the ears of Frenchmen with tales that the English proposed to retain Calais, or even to annex large areas of France. These suspicions have been inculcated with the usual Prussian clumsiness and have been unsuccessful. Similarly this picture of a benevolent Germany protecting Europe, including England, from the Yankee lust for world dominion will hardly induce our allies to make their peace with the Kaiser.

Ships and Labor Problem

N ARTICLE in the present number of the WORLD'S WORK sets forth the facts on the shipping situation. It is extremely important that the American people understand precisely to what extent we are likely to complete the ambitious programme outlined by Mr. Hurley. Unless we can build this new tonnage the United States might just as well end the elaborate military preparations which are now under way. The three thousand miles of sea that stretches between the United States and Europe possesses great protective value in a defensive war; for offensive operations, however, it presents an almost insurmountable handicap. No nation has ever transported an army of a million men over a watery waste of three thousand miles and kept it continuously supplied. Under the old conditions of sea warfare this would have been a mighty task; when this path is strewn with mines and submarines, however, it presents a problem that should challenge the powers of the most energetic people.

Our war with Germany is an aggressive, offensive war. Our purpose is to hurl our . arms, our men, our airplanes, and all our economic resources as promptly as possible against the German entrenchments. We can go on until doomsday manufacturing all these materials of warfare; unless we have first constructed a steel bridge across the Atlantic, by means of which they can be transported to the western front, we shall have all our pains for nothing. Whether we can do this depends entirely upon the success with which

we organize our man power. We have plenty of steel, plenty of turbines, plenty of officers and seamen—all that we lack are the workmen in the shipyards. The whole shipping situation resolves itself into this: if we can obtain 500,000 workers for our shipyards immediately, we can turn out 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 tons of shipping next year.

American workmen, therefore, have it in their power to destroy autocracy and make the freedom which they enjoy the universal order of mankind. They will suffer no inconveniences or discomforts in the process. The country is not asking them to abandon their families, to dig themselves into trenches and to offer their bodies as barriers to German bullets. It is asking them to work industriously eight hours a day for wages that represent twice or three times what they have ever earned before. But probably the greatest responsibility does not rest on the workingmen; it rests on the Administration. The article in this issue describes the demoralization which the present competitive labor system has produced in the shipyards. Instead of increasing the number of workmen as new shipyards are established, we have simply started these yards outbidding one another for the available labor supply, which hardly increases at all. As long as this process continues we shall get nowhere in the production of a great shipping fleet. The shipbuilders themselves are helpless. Only the Government can handle the situation. The Administration should act—and act quickly.

S

The Sick Security Markets

ECURITY markets are always subject to chills and fever. Since the war started there have been severe cases of each on the New York Stock Exchange. With our own entrance into the war real sickness in the market developed. the market developed. Early in November it became worse. The decline had in extent, both in the railroad and industrial stocks, exceeded that of the panic of 1907, although it had not been as rapid. According to averages compiled by the Wall Street Journal, the average decline, since our entrance into the war, in twenty active industrial issues was 29 points and in twenty railroad stocks 28 points. That was a loss amounting to more than one fourth of the market value of those stocks.

The sickness in the railroad stocks has been

protracted. It started as far back as 1912 and the recent decline carried many of the highgrade issues below the low levels of the 1907 panic. Railroad bonds sold lower than they had in a generation. Returns of 7 per cent. and more on stocks of the strongest roads, where the dividends are well protected by earnings, were common. Ordinarily such a decline would have been stopped by investmentbuying before that point was reached. count must, of course, be taken of the fact that Liberty Bonds have already absorbed more money than the people of this country ordinarily invest in a year. Nevertheless, the evidence cannot be evaded that confidence in railroad securities has been shaken. And it cannot be gainsaid that there has been much in the railroad situation to contribute to this disturbed confidence.

Ac

It is well at such a time, however, to remember that the railroads are the arteries for the business of this country and to recall that the late J. P. Morgan said the man who was a "bear" on the United States would go "broke." The same healthy optimism underlies a recent utterance by the present head of the Morgan house. Commenting on the declining security markets during the last Liberty Loan campaign Mr. J. P. Morgan was quoted as saying: "After all, what the security market does within the next month or two will not be of much importance one year from now. On the other hand, whether the war is won or lost is a matter of supreme importance."

Men of vision do not lose confidence because security prices decline. They know such movements have an end, and that then the pendulum swings the other way.

Restriction of Security Issues Needed

T

HE business of organizing new companies has grown rapidly in the last two years. In 1915 the authorized capital of new companies was $1,101,000,000. In 1916 it was $2,178,000,000. In the first ten months of this year it was $3,221,000,000, or fifty per cent. more than the first Liberty Loan. These figures are compiled by the Journal of Commerce, and include only incorporations in the Eastern states and those having capitalizations of $1,000,000 or more. These securities are not all offered to the public, but the intent is to sell a good part of them. Not since 1901 have new incorporations even

approached this year's figures. A reading of the list of names of the new companies is all that is necessary to convince one that we could well do without many of them and still wage war successfully. In England control over new financing was assumed by the Government early in the war. Here we have permitted our cities, for instance, to go ahead unrestrained with their financing; and in ten months of this year, according to the Daily Bond Buyer's figures, they sold $424,556,000 of long-term bonds. In the same period of 1913 they sold only $327,867,000. It is true that this year shows a slight falling off from last; but the competition which the Government must meet in the money market from this class of income tax-free securities is clearly evident.

The Priorities Committee of the War Industries Board is regulating the supply and use of materials for different industries. It seems high time that the demands on the supply of capital be regulated as well.

Mr. Morgenthau's Contribution to History ARDLY a week now passes that does

H

not shed some new light upon the origin of the war. Each fresh bit of information merely adds to the already overwhelming evidence that Germany deliberately precipitated this conflict. One of the latest witnesses who has first-hand information is Mr. Henry Morgenthau, ex-American Ambassador to Turkey.

In a recent newspaper article Mr. Morgenthau tells of an interview he had on August 18, 1914, with the Marquis of Pallavicini, Austro-Hungarian Ambassador at Constantinople. "The conversation," says Mr. Morgenthau, "turned to the war, which was in its third week, and His Excellency told me that when he visited the Emperor in May His Imperial Majesty had said that war was inevitable because of conditions in the Balkans."

Here is another witness, now brought torward by Mr. Morgenthau, whose testimony will help the historians place the responsibility for the existing calamity:

A still more remarkable confirmation came to me from Baron Wangenheim, the German Ambassador at Constantinople. In an outburst of enthusiasm after the arrival of the Goeben and the Breslau in the Dardanelles, he having directed their movement by wireless while they were en