$B 307 Efi4

MUST WE ARM?

HILLQVIT— GARDNER DEBATE

Published by

THE RAND SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

New York* 1916

Should Socialism Prevail?

A DEBATE BETWEEN

The Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Professor Scott Nearing Rev. Dr. John L. Belford

Mr. Morris Hillquit Professor Frederick M. Davenport

Price Single Copy, xoc; Special Rates for Larger Quantities.

Published by The Rand School of Social Science

140 E. tgth Street. N. Y. C.

New York, 1916

The Best Propaganda Pamphlet Ever Issued.

Socialism Summed Up

By Morris Hillquit

The clearest exposition of Socialism for beginners. Single copy 15c. Special price for large quantities.

Price Single Copy isc. Special Rates for Large Quantities.

Published by The Rand School of Social Science

140 E. 19th Street,

New York City.

MVST WE ARM?

A Debate on the Question : Resolved, That the Security of the Nation Requires an Increase of the Mihtary Force of the United States

Held in Carnegrie Hall New York, April 2, 1915, under the auspices of The Rand School of Social Science

For the Affirmative, AUGUSTUS P. GARDNER, M. C.

For the Negative, MORRIS HILLQUIT

Chairman, PROF. CHARLES P. FAGNANI

Stenographically reported by M. M. Bartholomew

Published by THE RAND SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE New York, 1916

Copyright 14)16

by

Rand School of Social Scieace

New York City

THE DEBATERS

Augustus P. Gardner, Member of Congress from Massachusetts, was born in Massachusetts in 1865. He is a graduate of Har- vard University and the Harvard Lav^' School. He was a member of the Massachusetts Senate from 1899 to 1901, and in 1902 was elected to the Congress of the United States on the Republican ticket. Since 1902 he has served continuously in this capacity. He received the Republican nom- ination for Governor of Massa- chusetts in 1913 and served as As- sistant Adjutant General in the congressman Spanish-American War. ^^^^ISa^sae'^usX'''''''' Morris Hillquit was born in Russia in 1869. He was grad- uated, from the University Law School in New York in

1893, and has since practiced law in New York. He has been a member of the Socialist Party since 1888 and has served in its most important committees and conventions. He was delegate to the International Socialist Con- gresses held at Amsterdam, 1904, Stuttgart, 1907, and Copenhagen, 1910, and has been a representa- tive of the Socialist Party of the United States on the Interna- tional Socialist Bureau since 1904. He is now also a member of the MORRIS HILLQUIT National Committee of the So-

New York cialist Party.

341)300

FOREWORD

For a hundred years the foreign policy of the United States was summed up in Washington's advice against entangling alliances and Monroe's declaration that the Western Hemisphere was not to be regarded as a field for colonization by the Powers of the Old World. It is that policy, made practicable by our geographical isolation and the abundance of onr natural resources, and perhaps aided at certain moments by peculiar conjunctures of European politics, which enabled our country to offer an asylum to the oppressed and a home to the disinherited; to develop a democracy which, if still far from perfect, is yet justly envied by most other peoples; and, above all, to devote our energies to the arts of peace, even to go through a desperate civil war without reaping the usual harvest of war — the corrupting ideals of militarism and a crushing burden of armaments.

Is all that irrevocably past? Is it unavoidable that the United States henceforth play the role of w^hat is technically called a Great Power ?

At the close of the century we entered upon a new course. How far it was contemplated, how^ far understood, by our statesmen and financiers, may be open to question. So far as the masses were con- cerned, it was an unpremeditated, an unforeseen, an involuntary step. We woke up, one Alay morning, to find our Republic the mistress of an island empire six thousand miles away and courted or looked on askance by all the powers which had regarded the Orient as their undivided estate.

Much has happened since than — all in logical sequence. For one thing, in less than twenty years we have almost quintupled our mili- tary and naval expenditures. They now amount to more than quarter of a billion dollars yearly, exclusive of pensions and the cost of the state militia.

The money itself is not the main consideration. Three hundred millions of dollars a year is well worth mentioning on its own account, but the figures are important chiefly as an index to the change in our policy, our ideals, perhaps our destiny. The staggering thing is to learn, now our attention is called to it, that after all we have only a third-rate or fourth-rate navy and perhaps a tenth-rate army.

Do we wish to advance in this direction, to strain every nerve, to make every sacrifice that may be called for, in order to catch up and keep up with the nations who have started ahead of us on this path? Or do we wish to follow quite another course than that which is now being illustrated in Europe? It is either to go on with a will — to double our navy and twice double our army at once, and then to go on doubling both every five or six years — and, in the bargain, to enter into offensive and defensive alliances and stand ready to make other people's quarrels our own — or else to resolve in time that we will avoid war by avoiding its causes.

This is the question the American people have to answer — a ques- tion put to them, not by the pacifists nor by the militarists, but by the facts.

In publishing this report of the debate between Congressman Gardner and Morris Hillquit, to which three thousand persons listened with rapt attention, the Rand School of Social Science does its part toward helping the millions to weigh the arguments and decide.

ALGERNON LEE.

New York. May 1, 1915.

THE DEBATE

The Educational Director of the Rand School called the meeting to order ^nd, after stating the question, introduced as chairman for the evening "a man in whom both debaters and audience can have the fullest confidence, a man who commands universal respect alike as a scholar and as a citizen," Professor Charles P. Fagnani of Union Theological Seminary.

The stenographic report follows.

THE CHAIRMAN : Ladies and Gentlemen : An ideal chairman would be a person who was chair-ridden and tongue-tied. I shall endeavor to be both.

We have gathered in such large numbers this evening for a debate — not, however, for a debate in the etymological sense of the word, for to debate etymologically means to beat down. Neither of these gentlemen intends to beat the other down. We are going to debate in the secondary or usual sense of the word, which simply means for each speaker to air his opinions and his convictions, leaving it to the audience to make up their own minds.

Some one has said that we could profitably dispense with both epithets and epaulets. Perhaps we would not all agree on the subject of epaulets, but I am convinced that we are harmonious concerning epithets. Nothing is ever gained by calling names. And this mighty subject that is to be considered this evening is one regarding which good men can well dififer, and so those who hold one side would not be justified in calling the other traitors, nor any other epithet whatsoever.

We are the citizens of this great country, and we do the thinking for the country, and we affect the governing of the country; and it behooves us to see all sides of a question. There are always two sides to everything. Life itself is an equilibrium; it is a balance between two forces. Take our own bodies, for instance. If it were not for pressure within, balanced by the pressure from without, the result would be either explosion or collapse. Things have to be adjusted, and have to be weighed one against the other. Life is not a simple thing, it is a complex question. These gentlemen who are to speak to you each believes in what he has to say. I do not suppose, however,

Must We Arm ?

that either of them would take the position of the man who says that truth lies at the bottom of a well, and I am the only man that has got the pump. Th^re are different ways of getting at truth, and no one has any prerogative or monopoly on the subject.

Before introducing to you the first speaker, let me say that the arrangement has been that Congressman Gardner is to begin, and is to have one hour, and Mr. Hillquit is to close, speaking for another hour. That will conclude the debate. I have been requested to give notice to each speaker five minutes before his time has elapsed.

We have with us two distinguished men, probably men who throughout the country would be picked out for the respective parts that they are to play before us this evening. Congressman Augustus Peabody Gardner, of the Sixth District of Massachusetts, has served many years in Congress, and we have read some of the things that he has said. And we are all, I am sure, most interested and eager to see the man himself and to hear the words pouring out from his own heart and conviction.

It is with great pleasure that I now present Congressman Gardner to you. (Applause.)

CONGRESSMAN GARDNER: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen :

I sometimes go away from a meeting like this, after listening to a speaker, feeling doubtful in my own mind whether what he says is accurate. Now, I am going to make a good many surprising state- ments to you to-night, and for that reason I prepared last January a pamphlet which I call my Army and Navy Manual. It has* been distributed to you, and in it you will find references to the original evidence for almost everything that I shall have to say. Of course there are some things which I shall say which have arisen out of incidents which have taken place since the middle of January, when T prepared that pamphlet.

I am here to persuade you that the United States ought to be prepared against war. Now. the Carnegie speakers with whom I debate this question insist en confusing that proposition, which is a

Must We Arm?

plain one, with being prepared for war. Let me point out to you the difference.

Germany was prepared for war, and she made war. Switzerland was prepared against war, and she has avoided war. Belgium was neither prepared for war nor against war, and war has overwhelmed her. ''Oh, but," says some one, "Europe is drunk with slaughter. When you see your neighbor reeling with drink, is that any time to put by a new supply of liquor?" That is what David Starr Jordan said in a debate with me on this subject, and he said it triu'mphantly. No, my friends, it is not a time to put in a fresh supply of liquor; but it is mighty good time when you see the neighbors reeling with drink, to hire a fresh lot of policemen, and to see that they are armed with good, stout night-sticks, and to see that they have their powder dry. Oh, it isn't drink that the Allies have been reeling with, it is peace dope. And when you see your neighbors staggering under the blows which were administered before they awoke from their pipe dreams, it is a pretty poor time to lay in a supply of the very dope which drugged them.

Why, my friends, they tell you that it is the man who goes about with a revolver in his pocket that gets into trouble, and for that reason you should not be armed. That is true. It is the man who goes about with a revolver in his pocket that gets into trouble, but it is not because he carries a revolver. He carries that revolver because he is a quarrelsome, troublesome man. That revolver is the effect, not the cause. Why, my friends, you arm your policemen here in New York with revolvers. You teach them to use them when necessary. You don't believe they are inciting the people to riot, do you, just because they have revolvers? And if you do, how about your firemen? You equip them with the best machinery you can find to fight fire. You teach them to perfect themselves in the art of fighting conflagrations. Do you find that induces them to become incendiaries?

My friends, I am here to tell you — ^you can call me a Militarist if you choose, that is the least of the names I am called. I am generally called a crook, somebody hired by the makers of armor plate. — But I tell you I am here to advocate a few more dogs of war, and I

Must We Arm ? 9

promise you that I will never vote to set them on the innocent passers-by. What v^e need is a navy big enough to protect us and make us safe against any nation on earth, including Great Britain. (Applause.) And I don't much care what it costs.

Oh, let us settle all these things by compulsory arbitration in the future, provided by treaties, and international court, perhaps with an international army and navy — no less. That is the program. I do not know about this treaty business. I am sorry to say that Uncle Sam has not always lived up to his treaties. We made a good many treaties with the Indians, not so very long ago either, telling them that they should have certain lands as long as water ran and grass grew. Those Indians are not there. We have moved them out to some place where the grass does not grow so green and the water doesn't run so swift. But we can't help it. A nation of ninety millions of people cannot be kept back by a handful of savages. I know that is not very far from the argument which Germany is using today, and I am not sure that to that extent her argument is not sound.

The Chinese, we didn't keep our treaty with when we passed the first Mongolian Exclusion Act. And I was for that act. If Belgitun had put less faith in that treaty which is now known as a scrap of paper, and had put more faith in being prepared against war, the invasion of France would not have taken place through Belgium, but would have taken place on the Verdun-Toul line.

Now, no matter what we may have done in this country in the matter of treaties heretofore, henceforward when Uncle Sam puts his sign manual to a treaty, although the rest of the world violate their half of the treaty, yet we must maintain ours. I am very glad that you do not applaud that sentiment, because it is a false one. It is internationally false. Supposing that in carrying out that principle our path was crossed by some nation with a smaller conscience and a bigger howitzer. How is it going to be then? Can we take care of the situation with gigantic rolls of Sunday School signatures, such as have been sent to us in Washington, with which to meet the diffi- culty? Or can we handle it with a few well directed shots from Chautauqua platforms? It may be possible that we shall be able to

10 Must We Arm ?

handle the situation in that way, and then again it may not be possible.

I am going to talk to you a little about some of these questions which we should be compelled to arbitrate under the new dispensa- tion, and then I am going to ask this audience if you would be willing to arbitrate them. I know my constituents would never return me to Congress if I consented to any arrangement under which these questions I am going to speak to you about would be arbitrated.

Take, for instance, the Monroe Doctrine. You all know what the Monroe Doctrine is — at least you think you do. But if you do know what the Monroe Doctrine is, you are the only audience from Cape Mendocino to Eastport that does. It is easy enough to know what the Monroe Doctrine was. All you have to do is to turn back to President Monroe's message and read that, and then send for an interpreter to help you understand it. But it has grown to mean something very different in the minds of that composite entity which we call the American people. I am going to try to tell you, as nearly as possible, what the Monroe Doctrine means, so nearly as I can judge, in the minds of our fellow countrymen. We say to foreign nations: **It is all very well for you to retain the colonies and the spheres of influence and the islands which you already have in North America and in Central America and in the West Indies, and in South America, but don't you get any more of theim." That is the Monroe Doctrine; and it is the only safe doctrine for us to have. We can't have Europe at close quarters, where they can establish military bases.

Now, let us see how it works out. Take, for instance, the case of Germany. Germany is teeming with population. In fifty years Germany will be bursting with population — as much as anything, that is the trouble which has caused this war. Now, Germany has been overflowing into Brazil. Vast numbers of her people have gone down to Brazil, and very well they have done down in Brazil, for Brazil is a wonderful country, but it has a very bad government. The German settlers complain that the Brazilian government robs them; just as settlers in Mexico have always complained that the Mexican govern- ment robs them. The government of Brazil is about one-fifth Portr guese and the other four-fifths a mixture of Negro and Indian. No wonder the German settlers object to that form of government. But

Must We Arm ? 11

we say to them : "Don't you try any Jameson Raid business down there in South America, the same as the British did in South Africa. Don't you start anything going, and then call on the Fatherland to help you out, because the moment you do you are up against the Monroe Doctrine, and the Fatherland is in a fight with the United States."

Now, that I believe to be a first-class doctrine. I will tell you another first-class doctrine. About thirty years ago, or a little over, we found that yellow men were coming into this country from China in great numbers, spreading up and down the Pacific Coast and pre- paring to come eastward. We found that there was an ineradicable repugnance between white people and Chinamen. Now, if any body of you believes in the brotherhood of man — honestly believes in it — and is frank with him or herself, ask yourself the question whether you would have your daughter marry a Chinaman. If you want to known what your real sentiments are, and if you come from the South, ask if you would have your daughter marry a Negro. We found not only that there was an ineradicable difference between the yellow man and the white man, but we found that those yellow China- men cut way under the wages of the American citizens on the Pacific coast, and an agitation was started by every laboring man on that . coast, which spread from West to East, until Congress was forced to act, until we excluded those Chinese from this country and forbade them, with their low standard of living, to cut down, undercut, the wages of our own people.

Then, as time went on, the Japanese began to come in, and exactly what was true of the Chinese was also true of the Japanese. And then we made an arrangement, very much against the will of the Japanese government, for they are a proud people, under which the Japanese are excluded from coming into this country and cutting down the wages of our own people.

Now ask any labor leader from California to Maine whether his people would consent to leave that question to arbitration by an inter- national court. And then ask him if that question of the exclusion of Japanese was left to an international court to be decided, how he

12 Must We Arm?

i

thinks that international court would decide it. Remember, Japan has proved itself a first-class nation. Now, try that the next time you get into conversation with a labor leader, ask him two things. First, whether we Congressmen would dare go against organized labor in that matter; and then, second, ask him how organized labor would stand on that question of arbitrating the exclusion of the Asiatics from this country. Why, my friends, we have looked the proudest nation of the East square in the eye. We have looked the greatest fighting race that Asia ever produced, those Japanese, square in the eye, and we have said, "We will have none of you here."

Now, that is another first-class doctrine. But you will never maintain it with a third-class fleet.

The world says we are wrong. I am willing to fight for those doctrines — which is easy enough to say for a man who is fifty years old — and I am willing to pay an extra income tax to support that doctrine, which is a good deal harder. But the world says we are wrong. The world says those are dog-in-the-manger doctrines. Well, my friends, perhaps they are. But if we are to be dogs in the manger, for Heaven's sake let's not be toothless dogs in the manger.

Talk about the United States being a peace-loving people. My friends, history hasn't recorded a more peppery nation than we have been. We have had a fight every twenty-five years of our existence, and at the present actual moment we have got a chip on each shoulder, and both arms in a sling. (Laughter and applause.) Natural history tells us of no more unhappy animal than the cat when it finds itself in a certain place without claws.

But after this war is over we are told there is to be a general disarmament. Well, put yourself in my place. I have got to do more than talk or spill printers' ink on this proposition. I have to vote. I have to take the responsibility for my vote. If you were in my place would you risk the future of this country on a proposition that we may disarm. Why, my friends, the prophecies of disarma- ment made today are precisely the same that Immanuel Kant was making at the end of the eighteenth century, and the program today is mighty little different from that proposed by Kant. And Lieber followed him, and Cobden and Bright, and Jefferson in our own

J

Must We Arm ? 13

country. It may be that disarmament is coming some day, when we have got so far over our prejudice against yellow people that we intermarry our daughters with their sons. But meanwhile I have to vote. And am I to assume that disarmament is coming? Why, think a moment.

Do you realize that Great Britain is the only nation upon earth of any size that cannot feed itself? Do you realize that Great Britain has to depend on an ocean open to commerce to stave off starvation? Do you know that the British people for a hundred years nearly have maintained that they didn't dare have their food supply at the mercy of a combination of any two nations? Do you know that that is why they established what is called their "two-power standard of navy," a navy to be equal to that of any other two nations on earth? How would their people, if tliey are winners, allow them to dare to risk starvation on the friendliness — the supposed friendliness — of peo- ple who have sworn to hate them from now to eternity? Well, I can see how they might do it. I can conceive of the possibility of Great Britain consenting to disarm her navy if the navies of all the rest of the world were disarmed. But supposing she did it, supposing she disarms her navy and all the rest of the world disarms their navies. Why, my friends, when it is all done, she is stronger at sea than ever. Preponderant as Great Britain's navy is, over the navies of the rest of the world, her merchant marine has a far greater preponderance, and all she has got to do in time of war is to arm that merchant marine while her opponents are arming their merchant marine, and there you have got the old preponderance once more. Oh, it will be cheaper, if that is all we are thinking about — and that seems such a foolish thing for us to think about. We are the only nation upon earth that can afford a gigantic navy and never know whether we have one or not. There isn't a hundred people in this audience who could tell me now within a hundred millions how much we spend for our navy each year.

Now, what is the matter? Why can't we discuss this thing like sensible people? Why can't we discuss it from its obvious point of view? My friends, Andrew Carnegie has given $10,000,000 for the purpose of hiring voices and spilling printers' ink to distort the

14 Must We Arm ?

presentation of this problem to the people; $487,000 was their income last year — and $487,000 will pay for the dreaming of many a dream. There were some of them shattered last summer. There was a peace conference that was going on at Lac de Constance at the end of last July. And the air reverberated with shouts that the bankers of Europe would not allow any war, and that the working men of Europe wouldn't fight each other merely because they wore different uniforms; and the Socialists of Europe swore a mighty oath that they would .not go to war; and the members of the Socialist Parliaments of Europe, headed by the one hundred and eleven Socialists in the German Reichstag, swore that as one man they would vote down any budget or any loan for the prosecution of a war. And just about that time the peace conference at Lac de Constance was caught in the maelstrom of the German mobilization, and they managed to get away under the wing of the Archduchess somebody or other — I have forgotten who — and they left their bag- gage behind, and most of it is there yet.

As for those bankers of Europe who were not going to permit any war, the same thing has happened as happens all through history, when the financial end comes up against the fighting end. The bank- ers of Europe were not asked. Now, David Starr Jordan said the other night when he debated this question before the Economic Club here in New York, that they didn't have time. Oh, they had time enough, but they were not asked until the war had started, and then the only question which was asked those bankers of Europe was whether they would contribute 200,000,000 pounds that week or the next week. That is the only question that was asked them.

And as for the working men of Europe, they flew at each other's throats as if they enjoyed it. I was over there at the time, and Marseillaising and God-Save-the-Kinging and Wacht-am-Rheining went on throughout the capitals of Europe to an unbelievable extent.

And by the way, my friends, when you get talking about wars for commercial reasons, and to save dynasties, just ask yourself which ii trying to get Italy into the war, the government or the people. And if you are honest with yourself, you will say the people of Italy are .;rying to get the nation into war; and the government is trying to

Must We Arm ? 16

keep it out. And the people of Greece and the people of Rumania are trying to get their countries into war, and their governments are trying to keep them out. Last Spring — I just give you this as an illustration that our nature is not very different from savages — last Spring at the time of the outbreak of the second Mexican war, I was standing down on Pennsylvania Avenue, opposite the office of the "Evening Star." We had picked a quarrel of some sort with a man by the name of Huerta, and finally the quarrel had reduced itself to this; We told him he had got to fire twenty-one guns straight as a salute, and he offered to fire them as a sandwich, one to one of each of ours. Now, that is what the dispute came down to finally. And he had until seven o'clock of a certain evening to give his definite answer, and if not, war was going to break out. The time came. The notice was posted on the bulletin of the "Evening Star" that Huerta refused to salute, and the crowd cheered — and I was ashamed of them, contemptible militarist as I am, because Mexico was a little nation, and little nation or big nation, that crowd ought to have turned away in sorrow when they found that war looked inevitable.

Now, how about these Socialists of Europe who "as one man" were going to vote down the budget and the loan, headed by the , one hundred and eleven Socialists in the German Reichstag? They kept their promise — that is exactly what they did — as one man they voted it down. That one man was Karl Liebknecht. (Hearty applause,)

Oh, it is true that there were fifteen more of them in the Socialist caucus who voted against it, but when it came to the floor of Xht Reichstag, they did not take that point of view. And on this second round that they had a little while ago, if the papers are correct, there were thirty of them who ducked out of the Reichstag before the vote took place. Now, if one of these capitalistic congressmen were to duck a vote on ^n important thing like that, the Lord knows what the uplift papers from one end of this country to the oth^r would say about us. (Laughter.)

There has not been one of our wars that has been brought on by commercial reasons. Almost every war of modern years of any sort has been a question of liberty, like our original Revolutionary War — and by the way, would we have submitted that to arbrtratioa? And

16 Must We Arm ?

if so, how would we have come out? And then when this country was expanding, we brought on the Mexican war by annexing Texas? No, by assisting Texas to get away from Mexico, and then annexing Texas. That is because we had to expand. I wonder how we would have come out in an international court on that proposition? Would the North have consented to arbitrate the question of human slavery? And would any of us who were of fighting age have consented to arbi- trate the question of whether the battleship Maine was blown up from the inside or from the outside?

Oh, my friends, when I think of the things that would be sub- mitted at once to an international court I shudder. The first question that would come before them is this: If you people in the United States won't protect foreigners' lives and property in Mexico, why shouldn't the international army and navy go in and do it? That would very likely be the first question. And supposing the inter- national court says to the international army and navy, "Go in; never mind what the Americans think about it" — What is our quota in the international army and navy going to do? Are we going to mutiny, or are we going to fight against ourselves? Ask yourselves that question. Oh, my friends, if you gave me the income of $487,000 a year, I would dream dreams to beat any Carneigie dreamer that ever came down the pike; because that is my pro- fession to do it. I can dream of the days when there are going to be no more burglars. I can dream just as well as you Socialists can of the days when property will not be an individual holding. Why, I represent Haverhill, where they used to elect a Socialist mayor year after year, fifteen years ago, and I am familiar with the doctrine preached then. We are no nearer it than we were then. It may be coming. I won't stake the future of this country meanwhile until it comes. I can dream, as I said, when there will be no more burglars. Meanwhile I live half a mile from the nearest neighbor in the coun- try, and I propose to continue to keep a watch dog. And as for my wife, during my absence she will continue to keep a loaded revolver on the table next to her bed. And up to date I have not noticed that her preparedness for war has induced her either to use it on the chickens or on me. (Laughter and applause.)

Must We Arm? 17

Now, I am coming down to a few particulars. Here is a state- ment, the verification of which you will not find in that manual, but you will find it in the Navy Year Book of 1914, published by the United States Government. The reason it isn't in the Manual is it arose out of a subsequent incident.

There was a battle in the North Sea a few Sundays ago, and in it were engaged nine capital ships, so-called. Capital ships means the great, big fighting ships, the dreadnaughts, the dreadnaught cruisers, and a few of the very biggest and newest armored cruisers — ^those vessels which take the high seas and keep the enemy's ships from transporting thir troops and their commerce, and keep the seas open for their own commerce. Those are the ships that we would have to depend on in case of war, to prevent the fleet of the enemy trans- ports conveying hostile soldiers- to our shores. They are the great fighting ships, and there were nine of them in that battle, five on the British side, four on the German side. And of those ships, one, the Bluecher, on the German side, was sent to the bottom of the sea. Why? Because it was over five miles an hour slower than any other of those nine ships. So the British fire was all concentrated on her, and she had to spread out her fire in return ; and so she went to the bottom of the sea. Now the Bluecher, which was five miles an hour and more — five knots to be accurate — slower than any other vessel in that fleet, was faster than the fastest capital ship in Uncle Sam's whole navy, either built or building today.

Now, my friends, we have what is known as the General Board of the Navy. It is composed of the very best and wisest admirals and naval officers. For a dozen years it has existed, and every year it makes its recommendations and we proceed to put its recom*menda- tions into the waste-paper basket. In 1903 it told us just what we needed in the way of ships of all sorts in order to make us safe. Safe against what? Safe against any nation except Great Britain. Why except Great Britain? I give it up. Now, my sympathies are entirely with the Allies, but I don't propose to be beholden to any nation for its friendliness. (Applause.) I want to stand on even terms with Great Britain in friendship, and look at it as one strong man looks at another strong man, whose right arm he respects; and

18 Must We Arm ?

I don't want to look at Great Britain like that and say, "My friend, I know at any moment you have a mind to you can knock my block off, but for Heaven's sake, stay friendly." That is the position we are in toward Great Britain at this exact moment.

But let us see whether we did what they told us to. They said we should have forty-eight battleships in the navy, first-class ones, less than twenty years old ; four destroyers for each battleship ; one scout cruiser, and other trimmings to suit. Now, let us see what they say in their report of 1914. This is November 17th, 1914, the report of the General Board. This shows that we are now deficient ten battle- ships building and authorized, from that contemplated in the 1903 program. Ten is an awful lot to be short from forty-eight. But ten isn't all. Some of those are not in full commission, because we haven't the crews. Moreover, we are a great deal shorter of destroyers and other vessels than we are of battleships. Listen to this from the General Board: "In the absence of any definite naval policy on our part, except in the General Board" — this is a report of the Secretary of the Navy — "and the failure of the people, the Congress, and the executive government to recognize the necessity for such a policy, has already placed us in a position of inferiority, which may lead to war, and this inferiority is progressive, and will continue to increase until the necessity for a definite policy is recognized and that policy piit into operation."

Now, let us see where we are at. I hold in my hand the last table of the warship tonnage of the principal naval powers. It is pre- pared by the office of Naval Intelligence, United States Navy Depart- ment, and it is dated July 1st, 1914; and that is the most recent. Since that time Germany has lost a tonnage of 140,000, about. But that is a mere drop in the bucket, and the Lord knows how much she has been building. But let us look at the situation on the first of July, because that is the real test. Here it is. Warship tonnage of the principal naval powers, tonnage completed:

Great Britain, 2,157,850. That is a little over 2,000,000. Ger- many, 951,000. That is 50,000 short of 1,000,000. United States,^ 765,000,

Must We Arm ? Id

That is tonnage completed. Let us look at the tonnage completed plus tonnage building, in the second column, July 1st :

Great Britain, 2,711,000. That is a big jump. Germany, 1,306,000. France, third, 899,000. United States, 894,000.

Oh, but somebody says the days of warships have gone by. The days of the submarines have come. They haven't yet. The ocean is still open to British troops and British commerce. If the position were reversed there would be a German government in Ottawa, Canada, today, and you could not avoid it. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that the day of the submarines has come. Where are our submarines? Nominally we have fifty-nine of them. Let us see what condition they are in. Some of them are admittedly in the scrap heap. Others are said to be in good condition. But they had a trial to find out last November. We have three fleets, of which the principal is the Atlantic fleet. And in that fleet are seventeen .sub- marines, five of them on the Panama Canal.

Now, here is the evidence on December 15th, 1914, before the Committee on Naval Affairs. Commander Yates Sterling in charge of the submarine flotilla is being interrogated. Representative Roberts, member of Congress, asks:

" *I am asking you that question because some newspapers, state that there is only one submarine out of the seventeen that: ^yill:dive.'

"Commander Sterling: 'I think I can explain w:here they ^ot that impression. The Commander in Chief ordered a mobilization of the Atlantic flotilla at Hampton Roads on the first of November of, all available vessels. He left it to me to say what vessels I would bring down there. He did not consider the five at Colon. That reduced the submarine flotilla to twelve. So when we got down there the Ad- miral wanted to know what we could do. I told him we had then only one submarine that I thought could efficiently take part in the maneuvers at sea off the coast."

But, says somebody, the day of the submarines has passed, and ;j.i^^now we are going to have air craft rule the world. Where are our t-i^ir craft? Now, I am going to read you from the evidence of Cap- •j: tain Mark Bristol, in charge of the Air Service of the Navy. He is %?.< testifying for the Army Air Service as well. Page 91 of his evidence.

20 Must We Arm?

''France has 22 dirigibles and 1,400 aeroplanes." (Dirigibles, as you know, are these balloons of various shapes, rigid and semi-rigid, etc.) "Russia, 18 dirigibles and 800 aeroplanes; Germany, 40 dirig- ibles and 1,000 aeroplanes;" etc. "United States, 23 aeroplanes." (Laughter and applause.) Of which eleven are in the army and twelve in the navy, not more than any two of the same type, and not one of them armored. And as far as Zeppelins and dirigibles are concerned, how many do you suppose we have? Not one single, soli- tary one. (Applause.) Why, my friends? Because Zeppelins cost money. A Zeppelin costs a million dollars. Now, what sort of a proposition is that to bring before us Congressmen? A million dol- lars for a hot-air machine. (Laughter.)

I am not going to say a great deal more. If we have a big enough navy we are safe as a church, and nothing else can make us safe. We need 20,000 men more in the navy today, so that we could get our vessels out of cold storage where they are now. We have ten battleships where we can't get at them because we haven't sufficient crews. If we could have more men in the navy it would be a great thing. Twenty thousand men in the navy would be worth 100,000 in the army. I am not going to talk to you much about your coast de- fences. You have twelve-inch guns here in New York, most of them with a range of 13,000 yards, four miles less than th^ guns on the Queen Elizabeth and Warspite, and twelve more super-dreadnaughts building in Great Britain and three in Germany. But we have appro- priated money, my friends, to make your twelve-inch guns as good as those fifteen-inch guns. And how do you suppose we are going to do it? By cocking them up in the air five degrees more, and reducing the weight of the projectile so that it will be 700 pounds, against the 1950-pound projectile of those ships.

The President says that a trained citizenry would leap to arms in case of war. (Applause.) Now, I don't know where the arms are for them to leap to. They are certainly not in the United States. (Applause.) But I am a trained citizenry. I have been a militiaman, and I was one of those Spanish War heroes. We have got just 24,602 men available for the Federal army, according to the report of the Secretary of War. That is about the size of your city's police

Must We Arm ? 21

force. And in addition to that they have 120,000 of us heroes, if every mother's son of us turns up, which is extremely unlikely.

Let us see how we did last year. Twenty-three thousand of us didn't go to inspection during the year; 31,000 of us didn't go to camp; and 44,000 of us men behind the guns were so far behind the guns we didn't go to the rifle range in the whole course of the year.

Now, when you talk all this nonsense about trained citizenry leaping to arms, I can't forget that in the Spanish War sixteen states of this Union failed to furnish their quota; nor that in the Civil War, after the first excitement was over, bounties had to be offered in cities and towns to fill the ranks; and that later on in the war both the North and the South were forced to the hateful necessity of draft, to force men to fight against their will; nor that there were riots right here in the City of New York against those drafts, and that Uncle Sam had to give $300 to veteran volunteers to get them to re-enlist. When I take up Woodrow Wilson's book I find it was the same thing in the war of 1812. The fact is, my friends, people don't like to be killed. (Hearty applause.)

And now we are told that the nations are going to be exhausted after this war, and won't be able to fight us. Why, our memories are pretty short. That is what Austria said in July. They said Servia has just been through a double war, she won't -be able to fight; but it took Austria three months to go down to Belgrade, and it took her three days to get out again. We were told after the Russian Japan- ese War that both nations were completely exhausted. Look at them now. And during our Civil War they said the North and the South are going to exhaust each other. France says, "This is our chance. We will get rid of your old Monroe Doctrine." So they put the Emperor Maximilian on the throne down there in Mexico, and put an army there to keep him there. And just as soon as we had a little let up, we sent General Sheridan with an army down to the Rio Grande, and he lined right up there, and every man Jack of them had the Monroe Doctrine in his hand, and the French army went out without firing a shot, except the shots that were fired at the poor Emperor Maximilian when they stood him up against a wall and shot him down.

22 Must We Arm?

Oh, my friends, don't trust to somebody else's weakness. Trust to your own strength. (Applause.) I lose my patience. I don't want to rock the boat. But I don't want to see every foreign nation that can pick up a rock, rocking us with it, I pick up the newspaper one day and I find that Turkey has fired a friendly solid shot across the bows of the Tennessee; and then I find that a friendly mob has at- tacked the crews of the United States ship North Carolina in Smyrna. And then I find that some nation in a friendly way has sent the William P. Frye down to Davey Jones' locker, and another friendly nation has shut off our trading with neutrals. And then I find that Japan says that the hinges have got to come off the open door in China; and I find that the State Department is taking it under "care- ful consideration;" that they have made very "strong recommenda- tions;" that they have made "representations of the firmest sort." And I confess I was beginning to get a little discouraged until I picked up the paper the other day, and then I found at last that Uncle Sam had recovered himself, recovered his old manhood, and stood up like Uncle Sam of old, and had taken a strong stand against the Piute Indians. (Laughter and applause.)

And now we are told that we must stifle the martial spirit, which America inherited from her rugged^^ pioneers. Folly! Worse than folly — madness. The madness of organized anaemia. The nation which stifles its martial spirit breeds a race of vassals. It has always been so. It always will be so. It is the martial spirit which refuses to be trampled on. It is the martial spirit which fights oppression in the only way that oppression ever yet was fought, by stout blows from strong arms, inspired by good stout hearts. Every nation on earth that hasn't had the martial spirit has been oppressed. And no nation with it has been oppressed if it was strong enough and numerous enough. Any nation with the martial spirit overthrew oppression, and if it wasn't numerous enough, like Ireland, it raised hell for a thousand years. (Applause.)

O, my friends, what are you thinking of? The martial spirit has been the saving grace of mankind. I come from a little town in Massachusetts where the same people have lived for three hundred years. We fought the Indians ; we conquered their country. We fought

Must We Arm ? 23

the French Canadians, and we drove them out. We fought King George's tax gatherers when they tried to take our property away from us, and we will fight the people's tax gatherers when they try to take our property away from us, too. One hundred and forty years ago, on an April day, the people in my town marched to Lexing- ton with the martial spirit of America blazing in those embattled farmers' breasts and lighting their eyes with a holy light which has beaconed their successors ever since. Do you ask me, bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh, to shroud that mighty light in some puny cloth woven in a gilded loom, set up by the minions of a vain and, I hope, repentant Croesus. You ask in vain. Better the fierce watch dog than the cowering sheep ! Better fighting Sparta than soft, luxurious Tyre ! Better Japan, bursting with arms, than China slobbering with lolling tongue, awaiting dismemberment! But better still, a nation ready but not eager, mighty, but not aggressive; firm, but not quarrelsome, having in mind the nature and history of the American people who, like their fathers who have gone before them, are neither children nor saints — nor will we ever be saints — ^but we are men in a world of men. (Applause.)

THE CHAIRMAN: Congressman Gardner would not have himself called a militarist. I do not suppose the next speaker would call himself a pacifist or a pacificist. It makes one feel like sneezing to pronounce those words. A pacifist has been defined as one who believes that an American citizen with a pure heart and a feather duster can lick his weight in wild cats. I don't know whether that is a prejudiced definition or not. Whatever the next speaker is, he is not a Congressman. (Laughter.) He might be called a near- Congressman. (Hearty applause.) And I think we would be justified in calling him a nearer-Congressman, for the day is doubtless not far distant when Morris Hillquit will be one of New York's representa- tives in Congress. (Very hearty applause.) We are going to see now what sort of a fight he can put up against Congressman Gardner. (Applause.) V

24 Must We Arm ?

MR. HILLQUIT : Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen :

I wish to thank the Chairman for launching this unexpected politi- cal boom, and T want to start making friends with my future colleague in Congress by saying that I do not entirely disagree with him.

I have been convinced by his argument to this extent, that from his point of view, his position in unassailable. If we grant his premise that the United States is in danger of becoming involved in war with a first-class foreign power, we must accept his conclusion that the country is woefully unprepared for such an emergency.

But I cannot accept my opponent's premise. I maintain that the argument of modern American militarism, of which Mr. Gardner is one of the leading exponents, is based on a colossal fallacy. The United States is not in danger of war. It has never been safer from hostile attack than it is at this period.

Mr. Gardner seems to regard war as something independent of human agencies and beyond human control, as a calamity in the nature of the eruption of a volcano or, to use his own com- parison, the outbreak of a fire I maintain that wars are man- made; that the civilized nations of to-day have it within their power to abolish them, and that, as far as the United States is concerned, we shall never face another war, unless we deliberately choose to make war.

A VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE : How do you know ?

I am asked how I know. Let me try to answer by a reference to the present war.

What was the cause of the appalling slaughter which is now shaking the foundations of Europe? Let ms analyze it carefully,

Must We Arm ? 25

for the fate of unfortunate Europe holds a* solemn warning for us, on the happier side of the Atlantic.

The total area of Europe is 3,570,000 square miles, or just as large as the continental United States, including Alaska. That area is peopled by more than four hundred million human beings, and is divided into twenty-two separate political sovereignties, many of which are in turn composed of several distinct countries, more or less loosely connected by the ties of a common political government. The boundaries of these numerous countries have been formed arbitrarily and capriciously by the unreasoning pro- cess of historical development. They split ethnological units and combine incongruous national groups ; they cut off large sections of the continent from necessary maritime outlets, and often impede free commerce and intercourse between the nations. The political history of Europe is a chronicle of succeeding changes of its map and of international intrigues and wars which have caused or accompanied such changes. And every war between two or more countries has created deep international grudges, has laid the foundation for new wars.

The everlasting strife between the nations of crowded and divided Europe has become more acute in recent times through the growth of international trade. Although a warship has never helped to sell a can of sardines or a bale of cotton, the nations of Europe have conceived the superstitious notion that a country's oversea trade must be protected by a strong navy. Although no colony has ever been of financial or material advantage to the mother-country, the trading classes of Europe have come to be- lieve that their prosperity depends on the ''ownership" of large oversea colonies. The leading countries of Europe thus entered into a ruinous rivalry in naval construction and in the acquisition of colonial possessions. Within the last thirty

26 Must We Arm ?

years England and France have acquired whole empires in Africa, and Germany has secured a colonial territory five times the size of the fatherland. The imperialistic policy of expansion has be- come the keynote of European international politics. The territory available for colonies was soon preempted, and the further expan- sion of colonial possessions of each European country had mainly to be accomplished at the expense of other European powers. Every country suspected the other of a design to expand and to steal colonies; every country was eager to expand and ready to steal colonies. Each mistrusted the peaceful intentions of its neighbor, and began to increase its armies and navies. It was all done for the ''national security,** not in preparation for war but in "preparation against war," as Mr. Gardner would say, just as a sort of "peace insurance,'* but each nation wanted to be a little more secure than the other, and so the European rivalry of arma- ment started on its mad career. The world has never been afflicted with such an insane spirit of militarism as it has within the last forty years. Prior to the Franco-Prussian war Prussia was the only country in Europe to maintain a standing army based on general compulsory military service. Since then the system has been adopted by every European power except Great Britain. Since 1870 the nations now at war have expended on military and naval preparations the stupendous sum of $40,000,000,000, forty times the famous war indemnity exacted by victorious Prussia from France, besides wasting the best years of the lives of their citizens in useless and brutalizing drills. Every year the burdens of militarism became more oppressive until the nations of Europe groaned under their intolerable weight. By 1914 Great Britain had a naval armada the like of which the waters of the world had never seen, and the continental powers of Europe had trained armies aggregating about four million men in times of peace and no less than eighteen million on a war footing. Each

Must We Arm ? 27

country was fully prepared to fight any country of similar size, but not one of them was strong enough to fight a combination of powers. And so they entered into military alliances for offensive and defensive purposes, a sort of war-partnerships.

Long before the outbreak of the war Europe was divided into hostile camps, and was in full battle array. Its countries had an abundance of the things Mr. Gardner's heart is yearning for: battleships, torpedo boat destroyers, submarines, aeroplanes, Zep- pelins, forts, guns, rifles, ammunition and big armies. They were ready for war — and they got their war. Their anti-war insurance turned out to be a bad case of over-insurance. (Hearty applause.)

For all the human lives that have been ruthlessly destroyed in this war, for the homes that have been wrecked, for the towns and villages that have been devastated, for the fiendish atrocities that have been perpetrated and the sufferings that have been in- flicted on mankind, the "patriots" of Europe who have been urging on their gullible countrymen the need of ever greater military preparedness, bear an awful share of responsibility.

To sum up then, the main causes of the great European war were artificial political boundaries, historical grudges, commercial rivalry, imperialism and militarism.

Turning now from this analysis to an examination of the conditions in the United States we find a complete absence of all factors that naturally make for war, and a happy combination of conditions calculated to ensure lasting peace. Our country is so vast in territory, so varied and abundant in natural wealth and resources, that we are as a nation economically self-sufficient. The United States is more self-sufficient than any country in the world. If we were to-day cut off from the world market; if we could not import or export a dollar's worth of goods, our popula-

28 Must We Arm ?

tion could still live in comfort and abundance. But there is no need for abandoning our foreign trade. No country will make war on us just because we sell to it our wheat or corn or buy from it its cloth or dyestuffs. We need no seaports for our trade that we do not have, for we own the whole coastline on both sides of our continent. We are not hampered by vexatious boundaries and customs duties in moving our goods from inland points to harbors, for we own every inch of the solid territory between the two. oceans, from the Canadian to the Mexican border. If national boundaries were obliterated in Europe, if England, France, Italy, Germany, Austria and all other European countries would unite into one great federation of nations with a common government and administration, if the ideal of the United States of Europe would become a reality, that would clearly mean the end of wars in Europe. Well, in the United States we have actually accom- plished what to Europe is still an iridescent dream of the remote future — we have established a thoroughly harmonious and indis- soluble federation of states.

We need no colonies. We can easily dispense with those we already have. Our acquisition of the Philippines, Porto Rico, Hawaii, was a most senseless political adventure. Not a man, woman or child in the United States has ever benefited to the ex- tent of a copper from our "possessions," and the only purpose they have ever served has been to increase our taxes, give occupa- tion to our army, and furnish a text for our militarist propagan- dist.

We have no national grudges to settle. The sectional feelings between the North and the South have long died out, and if they had not, of what avail would it be to arm the whole country, to prepare both sections equally for war?

And finally we have no neiehbors who may involve us in war.

Must We Arm ? 29

To the North of us there is only Canada, to the South of us there is only Mexico, to the East there is Europe — three thousand miles away, and to the West is Asia — five thousand miles away. We need not apprehend war with Canada. We have never had war with her and there is not one reason why we ever should have. We have always lived in peace and amity with our northern neighbor although we do not have a single fort on our 3,000-mile boundary line. Perhaps if we did build forts and mass troops on the Canadian border, we would manage to get into a fight with her. (Applause)

We certainly need not fear invasion from Mexico, and wc have no just cause to invade Mexico. Whether the forces of Carranza or those of Villa will eventually gain the upper hand is a matter of profound interest to us. But our interest does not justify us in assuming to fashion the political and social destines of our sister republic in accordance with our notions and by force of arms. (Applause.) No nation has ever been truly freed by the grace of a foreign power. The people of Mexico will ultima- tely work out their own salvation if left alone. The only right we can claim for any interference with Mexican affairs is the protection of the "Mexican property-rights" of our citizens. (Ap- lause.) But this alleged right is based on a most shaky founda- tion. If any American capitalist cares to 'invest in Mexican min- ing, oil or land concessions, he does so for his private gain, and should do so at his own risk and peril. (Hearty applause.) This country has no interest and no moral right to spend our people's money and to shed our people's blood for the accommodation of our capitalist adventurers.

Remains the question whether we are or ever can be in danger of invasion by a great non-American power. I maintain that to any mind not clouded by hysteria such a danger can only

30 Must We Arm ?

appear in the nature of a huge joke. There are two good reasons why no European or Asiatic power will ever attempt an invasion of the United States: First, they cannot do it, and second, they would gain nothing by it if they could. Let us assume, for the purpose of illustration, that Germany decides to make war on us. I take Germany because just now she is the black sheep among nations and considered capable of almost anything. To wage successful war on our territory she would first have to get her army across the Atlantic Ocean. We won't go to Germany to.be invaded, of course, so Germany will have to come to us. For that purpose she will have to build and equip from a thousand to two thousand transports to carry a million to two million soldiers with supplies, arms and ammunition to last for many months. The preparations for such an expedition would probably take from ten to twenty-five years and cost a few billion dollars, but why consider such trifles. Let us assume the fleet has arrived and landed without resistance. Germany now proceeds to "oc- cupy" us. Her armies take possession of our civil government, displace President Wilson and his cabinet in Washington. All governors of our forty-eight states, all mayors and other officials, some hundred thousands in number, are supplanted by German military officers. How do you think Tammany would take that? (Laughter.) But assume it is all done. To support a hostile military occupation in a country as large and populous as the United States, Germany would have to keep her entire army here, leaving her own country undefended. And then? And then we might turn to the victorious Kaiser and blandly ask him: "Well, Kaiser, now that you have got us, what are you going to do with us?'* And it would be a rnost perplexing question. (Laughter and applause.) What could the Kaiser do with us? Take our wealth? There is not* enough loose loot in the whole United States to pay for the building of fifty transports. Our

Must We Arm? 31

wealth is in our land and industries, our mines, factories and rail- roads, and above all in our accomplished methods of wealth production and in the brain and brawn of our working classes. (Applause.) These cannot be taken from us, and if our industries were impeded or destroyed Germany would suffer from it almost as much as we ourselves. Our railroad, mining and industrial stocks are owned by capitalists of all nationalities. They are quoted on the Berlin Bourse as well as on our Stock Exchange. A collapse of our securities and a cessation of our foreign trade would spell financial ruin and industrial panic in Germany.

What else could Germany do? Tax us or levy a heavy in- demnity? She could not raise enough to cover the expense of her expedition without ruining the country and again ruining her- self.

What else? We have heard about the "surplus population" of Germany for which the German nation is trying to provide new territory. The Kaiser might be tempted to annex one of our states for his surplus population, say New Jersey, and to make Hoboken the capital of that province. But is Germany really "bursting with population" as Mr. Gardner expresses it? Wc have had very little emigration from Germany within the last twenty-five years. The Germans on the whole seem to find room and happiness in their own country. But suppose they should again feel like settling in this country in large numbers. What of it? They have been coming by hundreds of thousands in earlier years. They have peopled entire cities and states. They have become an integral part of our population, and they did not have to come with an armed force to accomplish that. (Applause.)

Nor could Germany convert us into a colony. Mr. Gardner has reminded us that England has had her experience with us as a colony almost a century and a half ago, when the population of

32 Must We Arm ?

the country was less than three millions, and no other European or Asiatic power will be tempted to repeat the experiment to-day with our hundred millions of people.

The trouble with our apostles of militarism is that they still think in the terms of the early middle ages, when nations were wandering across the scantily inhabited globe in nomadic hordes seeking settlements, or making war on each other for pillage or booty. (Applause.) They do not realize that the great civilized nations of modern times cannot be conquered, destroyed, or sub- jugated, particularly a nation so situated as the United States.

But how about Belgium, it may be asked. Belgium is a small country immediately adjoining Germany, with a population about five per cent, of ours. And Belgium has not been destroyed and, as things look now, will not be destroyed.

But Mr. Gardner has reminded us of our Monroe Doctrine and our Asiatic exclusion laws. He sees visions of attacks on both, and heroically maintains that he would not leave the decisions of such vital questions to the ''machinations of an international court." I admit that an international court of justice or arbitration may be fallible. But what does my opponent ofifer by way of substitute as a more reliable instrument of social justice — the decision of weapons, the arbitrament of brute force? If that position is sound, let us speedily disband all courts of justice in the United States and re-introduce the methods of single combat and tribal feuds for the adjustment of our disputes.

The gospel of our awakening military "patriotism" would be amusing, if it were not so serious and dangerous. The appeal to national vanity and aggressive combativeness, the appeal to the animal instincts in men is always dangerous, but it is particularly so in these times of universal war-madness. (Applause.) The propaganda for increased armaments at this time is pregnant with

Must We Arm ? 33

gravest menace to the well-being and security of the nation, particularly because it is likely to be promoted and intensified by sordid economic interests. [ refer to the so-called "armor ring," which has reaped the prime and only benefit from the billions this nation has expended for armaments, and whose business interests are best served by war scares, war preparations and actual wars. Mr. Gardner has told you about the Carnegie Peace Fund of $10,000,000, with an annual income of well-nigh half-a-million dollars, all used for anti-war propaganda. But he has failed to mention the millions expended by the international trust for pro-war propaganda. (Very hearty applause.) I do not charge that the present militaristic agitation has been instigated by the patriotic gentlemen engaged in the manufacture. of armor plate, arms, and munitions, but I do say that these gentlemen have been known in the past to work up war sentiments in their own countries and in foreign countries, and to make millions from the sale at extortionate prices of armor plate, and rotten armor plate at. that, for the defense of their beloved countries, as well, as bat- tleships and guns which are expected to be directed against their countries. War means business to these gentlemen; war pro- paganda to them is canvassing of trade, and they are powerful and alert and suspiciously and perniciously patriotic in matters military.

Strenuous preparation "against war" means not only invitation of war, it means the brutalization of the country. A military power is a despotic power and training for war has a most de- moralizing effect on the youth of the country. You may say all you want about the ennobling influences of military discipline and the "martial spirit," but it is a matter of common and notorious knowledge that the barracks of professional soldiers reek with brutality, vice and degeneracy. (Hearty applause.)

But this is not all. There is another side to military prepared-

34 *MusT We Arm ?

ness about which Mr. Gardner has been strangely silent. He has told us the pathetic story of our lame aeroplanes, our floating sub- marines, our gunless forts and empty guns, our obsolete ships and lonely troops, but he has not shown you the reverse side of the medal — the tremendous cost of that crippled establishment. The fact is that we already expend on our military and naval forces larger sums than any other country in the world. In 1913 we paid for our army more than $165,000,000, for our navy almost $141,- 000,000, and for military pensions upward of $172,000,000, a total of almost half a billion dollars for wars, past and prospective, not including the cost of the state militia. In the same year Great Britain and Russia each expended for similar purposes less than $450,000,000 and militaristic Germany less than $300,000,000. It costs Germany to keep a soldier in the field $183 per year. It costs us $1,545.

In the last twenty years we have expended upward of $3,191,- 000,000 on our army and navy, exclusive of pensions. And still we are ludicrously unprepared, and are urged to increase our military and naval forces. Our advocates of ''preparedness" re- commend a trained army of 800,000 men, 205,000 in the standing army and 595,000 in the reserves. They recommend a navy at least equal to that of Germany. An army of that size would in- volve an expenditure of no less than $750,000,000 per year, and the navy would consume about $500,000,000 annually in construc- tion and maintenance. That is a total of $1,250,000,000 per year, and nearly $1,500,000,000 including pensions, $15 per capita of the population, $75 per family, about one-sixth of the average annual earnings of the American worker. And these monstrous annual offerings at the altar of the military moloch must be taken from the vitally necessary works of social progress and civilization.

Mr. Gardner and his militarist friends are so obsessed with the

Must We Arm ? 35

imaginary danger of war with a foreign nation that they do not seem to realize the vastily graver dangers of the actual daily war waged within the nation, the frightful and inhuman industrial war, which calls for all available resources and effects of the country. In our last war with Spain less than three hundred American soldiers were killed on the battlefield, but more than fifty thousand American workmen are annually killed in our mines, works and factories and on our railroads, while about half a million are in- jured, m.aimed and crippled in our industries. With a fraction of the millions expended for military purposes we could provide for a sufficient and efficient corps of mine, railroad and factory in- spectors and for the maintenance of proper safeguards, which would reduce these frightful industrial casualties to a minimum.

Tens of thousands of our people annually succumb to the ravages of tuberculosis, the typical disease of poverty. We could practically stamp out the dread white plague by applying a portion of the senseless military expenditures to the building of numerous sanitaria, offering plenty of fresh air and nournishing food to the unfortunate victims of the disease. (Applause.)

There are hundreds of thousands of aged workers in all parts of the country succumbing in helpless and pathetic destitution. They have spent their manhood, their strength and lives in useful service to their fellow men. They have helped to make this nation great and wealthy and powerful, and now that they have become old and feeble and incapable of making substantial profits for our captains of industry, an ungrateful community consigns them to the cheerless almshouse, the cold street and the dread bread line. We owe a duty to these aged public servants, the soldiers and he- roes of our industries. Less than half of the military budget would provide old-age pensions for them and enable them to close their lives in mciderate comfort and decent self-respect. (Applause.)

36 Must We Arm ?

Just at this time the United States is undergoing one of the severest economic trials in its history. The wheels of its industrial process have become hopelessly clogged. Millions of American workers are without jobs and without bread. With an expenditure ' of a hundred million dollars, taken from the war budget, the gov- ernment could organize numerous industrial enterprises, set the destitute jobless toilers to the work of making things they need for the sustenance of their lives, revive business and break the vicious circle of business depression, unemployment and poverty.

With the millions and billions of dollars called for by un- productive military expenses we could improve our system of education, raise the condition of our workers, and introduce meas- ures of civic and social justice, which would make this country vastly stronger, more irresistible and unconquerable than all the dreadnaughts and aeroj>lanes in creation. (Hearty applause.)

The people of the United States have arrived at the parting of the ways. They will have to choose between embarking on an adventurous and exhausting policy of militarism or staking their future on a rigid determination to mantain peace and social pro- gress. The present militarist agitation is only a mild and meek beginning. Where will it end? To-day Mr. Gardner is contented with an army of 800,000 men and a navy second in rank. Will he be satisfied when he gets it? No. For if we are to be prepared for war — I beg pardon — "against war" in general, not for war with a particular nation, but war with all comers, we may con- ceive of a conflict not only with a first-class foreign power, but with a combination of powers. All the powers now united against Germany may turn against us. Mr. Gardner says they will be ready for a new job as soon as they are through with their present one, and Germany herself may join them in the attack. War makes even queerer bed-fellows than politics, as recent events

Must We Arm ? 37

have amply demonstrated. Japan is fighting on the same side with Russia in this war, and every power on either side is fighting with some former enemy against some former ally. To be fully pre- pared, to be in a position to look the entire world "squarely in the face as one strong man against the other" with a proper "martial spirit" born of a "strong arm" we must have land forces surpassing those of Germany and a navy superior to that of Great Britain. And as the powers of Europe increase and improve their military and naval forces, we must keep pace with them.

Every dreadnaught built becomes obsolete in a few years, and new inventions every once in a while throw all military equip- ments and ammunition into the scrapheap. There is no stop or pause in the ever-increasing burdens of military preparation. A nation that once allows itself to be drawn into the mad vortex of military rivalry, cannot resist, cannot recede. When Russia began to choke under the intolerable load of militarism. Czar Nicholas cried out in vain for a general limitation of armaments. When the naval rivalry between Great Britain and Germany reached the breaking point, the former implored without success for a "naval holiday." Military "powers" are the slaves of the military system. Mr. Gardner has referred somewhat ironically to the war-attitude of the Socialists of Germany, France and Belgium, who have all voted war credits to their governments and are now engaged in the slaughter of their comrades. The situation is certainly tragic, but Mr. Gardner has failed to draw the only true lesson from it. When the war exploded among the overarmed and overprepared nations of Europe, no power on earth could withstand its force. It was too late to avert the catastrophe then. The time to act was in the early days of military agitation in Europe, when the begin- ning rivalry of armament laid the foundation for the war. That was the time to protest and to resist. (Great applause.)

38 Must We Arm ?

And so it is in the United States. When we once adopt the policy of ever-increasing armament, when our cities and towns arc full of barracks, when we are swelled with the "martial spirit" which Mr. Gardner advocates, nothing will save us from a catac- lysm similar to that which is now engulfing pooi Europe. The insidious and dangerous militarist propaganda must be stopped before it has acquired much force.

And the danger of militarism to our country is not imaginary, but terribly real. In 1897 we spent on our army and navy less than $72,000,000. To-day we have raised that sum to more than $306,000,000, an increase of about 325%, and now we are again asked to double or treble our military burdens. And for what? For a fantom fear, for the brood of hysterical imaginations.

The modern militarist propaganda in the United States has received its main impetus from the war in Europe. But that war is rather a guaranty of peace than a menace to us. Its conclusion will leave the military powers of Europe exhausted and in any- thing but a bellicose spirit. It is true countries have recovered after wars and have fought again. But a war of this magnitude and ferocity does pot occur even once in a century, and when it does occur it is always followed by a long era of peace.

Some day the orgy of murder and blood which is now devour- ing Europe will cease. The unfortunate nations at war will pause, bleeding, exhausted, ashamed. Their war-intoxication will pass, and they will begin to realize the unspeakable horrors of it all. Their weary eyes will encounter nothing but ruin and desolation in Europe, they will turn to us, the great republic of the West, which alone of all powerful nations has managed to maintain peace. They will look to us for comfort, for hope W^hat shall be our answer? Shall it be the same vicious rattling of sabres, or shall it be a message of peace, a promise of a saner, better, hu-

Must We Arm ? 39

maner world for the future? Let it be peace. The United States can never become a first-class military power. Let us center our ambition, our hope and aspiration on making our country the first great peace power of the world. (Prolonged applause.)

DR. FAGNANI : It only remains for me to voice, very inade- quately, the gratitude and appreciation of this superb audience to both of these gentlemen that have spoken so well. Now let us go home and think it over.

40 Must We Arm ?

WHAT THE RAND SCHOOL IS

The establishment of the Rand School in 1906 was made pos- sible by an endowment provided, at the suggestion of Prof. George D. Herron, by the late Mrs. Carrie D. Rand, with a contributory fund added by her daughter, Mrs. Carrie Rand Herron, who showed a keen interest in its work till her untimely death early in 1914. The income from this fund is supplemented by tuition fees and by donations from individuals and organizations in sympathy with the purpose of the school.

This purpose, as originally stated and as since adhered to, is twofold: To offer to the public opportunities for the study of Socialism; and to offer to Socialists instruction on lines calculated to make them more efficient workers for the Cause.

SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT

The Rand School was at first a purely local institution, offer- ing evening and Sunday classes in Economics, Sociology, History, and kindred subjects, and also in English and Public Speaking, for residents of New York City who wished to use to the best advan- tage in directed study such time as they could spare from their bread winning occupations. Some attended but one session a week, some two, three, or even four. Many came year after year to study different subjects. The sexes were at all times about equally represented in the student body. The majority were mechanics, factory operatives, and office workers, with a sprinkling of school teachers, housewives, professional persons, and others. From forty to sixty per cent, were members of the Socialist Party at the time of their entry, and many of the others joined the party or- ganization during or after their term at the school. Year by year the number of individuals attending such classes at the central building in Nineteenth Street has varied between 200 and 450, and the aggregate for the nine years runs well above 2,500. But these constitute only a fraction of the whole body of Rand School stu- dents.

Must We Arm ? 41

EXTENSION CLASSES

It soon became evident that the work of the School would not and could not be kept within such narrow limits. Extension classes were formed from time to time in outlying parts of the city and in neighboring counties of New York and New Jersey, and in 1913 an autonomous branch was established in the East Side. The number of persons who have attended branch classes is at least equal to those who have studied at the central school.

As the work of the Rand School became known throughout the country, requests for a further extension of its services came from the most distant places. At the same time arose the ques- tion of providing for persons who wished for more thorough and advanced training than could be given in evening classes. The financial difficulties under which the School labors made it a seri- ous problem to meet these new demands. This problem has been solved along two lines.

FULL-TIME COURSE

In 191 1 the Rand School inaugurated its Full-Time Course, for persons who could arrange to devote themselves wholly to intensive study for a term of six months. In the four years that have since gone by, sixty-one persons have entered this course.

CORRESPONDENCE DEPARTMENT

In 1913 after some experimental attempts, the Rand School definitely launched its Correspondence Department, which met with a warm welcome. Up to the present time correspondence courses have been taken up by about 3,600 persons. The National Executive Committee has formally endorsed this work and ad- vised locals to form study classes, and several State Secretaries have spoken in warm terms of the service rendered by such classes in strengthening the party organization.

42 Must We Arm ?

BUREAU OF LABOR RESEARCH

An important new department is being organized, which has a double function — to investigate problems of vital interest to the Socialist and Labor Movement and present the data and conclu- sions in such form as to be of practical use to editors, lecturers, committees, and public officials; and at the same time to instruct and train a group of young men and women in the technique of original research, so that the development of the work may keep pace with the growing needs of the party and the unions.

FINANCIAL RESOURCES

The Rand School is controlled by the American Socialist So- ciety, an incorporated body, which has always followed the policy of taking in only party members. The detailed administration is in the hands of an Executive Secretary and an Educational Di- rector, chosen by and responsible to a Board of Directors, elected annually by the Society.

An idea seems to have got abroad that the Rand School is a richly endowed institution. Unfortunately, this is far from true. From the beginning its tasks and its expenses have been larger than could have been foreseen. They have grown from year to year, and they will go on growing. The income from the Rand Fund has never been sufficient to meet the needs. This fund, moreover, is subject to diminution and ultimate extinguishment.

As it now stands, in order to go forward without fear, the Rand School ought, in addition to the fluctuating and eventually diminishing income from the Rand Fund and the revenue derived from tuition fees, benefit entertainments, and book sales, to have the assurance of $3,500 a year for its General Fund and at least $2,000 a year for its Scholarship Fund, which is used in aiding de- sirable Full-Time students who are unable to pay their own way in full.

Single contributions or, better still, pledges of annual con- tributions to be paid at stated times will be warmly welcomed

Must We Arm? 43

by the Executive Secretary, upon whom rests the daily responsi- bility of "keeping up the steam."'

GROWTH

Thus, from small beginnings, the Rand School has steadily grown in response to the needs of the movement, until to-day it can fairly claim to rank as the Workers' University of the United States. Taking all departments into account, it has had more than two thousand students in the year 1914-15, and about ten thousand during the nine years of its existence. Its Directors feel, however, that only a start has been made. They intend to go on, as in the past, with a minimum of wordy promise and a maximum of solid achievement, confident that honest and unpretentious service will bring the support necessary for further development.

For information on any or all of the departments of the School send for bulletin.

Instructors and Lecturers, 1915-1916:

Samuel E. Beardsley Juliet Stuart Poyntz, A. M.

Louis B. Boudin I. M. Rubinow, Ph. D.

August Clae^sens Max Schonberg

Benjamin C. Gruenberg, Ph. D. Prof. James T. Shotwell

Morris Hillquit John Spargo

Prof. Scott Nearing N. L Stone, Ph. D.

and others

Educational Director, Algernon Lee Executive Secretary, Bertha H. Mailly

44 Must We Arm?

THE NEW YORK CALL DEVOTED TO THE INTERESTS OF THE WORKING PEOPLE.

Here is set forth briefly the story of one of the most dramatic phases of the history of the struggle to free the workers of America. It is the condensed story of the New York Call, the only Socialist daily newspaper in the east and the oldest one in the country.

The Call was first issued on May 30, 1908.

It is co-operatively owned by an association of working men and women. Membership in this association cost $5 and may be had by vote of the association following application through any member.

A board of managers, representing the association and the So- cialist party organizations of New York are the persons in direct supervision of the publication of the paper.

The Call is not self-supporting and never has been. It is more nearly self-supporting now than at any previous time. The deficit for 1916 will be about $300 per week. To meet this deficit a pledge fund is raised. This has been the course pursued since the paper was started. The fact that each year sees a smaller pledge fund needed is the one sure indication of the growing strength of the paper and of the increasing support that the workers are giving it.

At present The Call stands as the recognized organ of ALL of the organized workers of the Greater New York district.

The Call always has spoken for the Socialist party. During 1915 it was given the endorsement of the Central Federated Union of New York, the Brooklyn Central Labor Union and the Essex Trades Council, representing the organized workers of northern New Jersey.

Must We Akm - 45

There is no newspaper in New York City, or elsewhere in this country that speaks in the name of so many ORGANIZED people. This is a distinction that is unique and of which The Call is proud.

The Call is published every day. On Sundays it publishes two sections, an eight-page news section and a i6-page magazine sec- tion. The week-day editions are usually of six pages. It is our hope that before long the size of the regular week-day edition may be increased to permit of the publication of a greater variety of news and special feature articles.

The working force of The Call is divided as follows:

A business office staff, headed by the business manager. This staff cares for circulation, advertising, pledges and routing business of all kinds. This staff, like the staff in the editorial department, never has been large enough to permit of doing the work that it would like to do, but it has accomplished very wonderful things when its limitations are considered.

An editorial department, headed by the managing editor. In this department there are these sub-divisions: Editorial writers, Sunday editor and news staff under the direction of the city editor. It is the work of these people to handle all of the news that is published, to direct the getting of it and to do all of the things that go into the work of actually producing the paper.

The policy of The Call is that of the Socialist party. It is committed to the doctrine of Socialism,, absolutely. Barring those errors that can never be wholly avoided, The Call constantly ex- presses the true aims of the Socialist party on the political field and of the trade union movement on the industrial field.

Through The Call the workers are also able to get the vital news that the capitalist press either will not print or does not deem fit to print. In other words The Call always presents labor's side

46 !vIuSi We Arm?

of the case. Without The Call there would not be any adequate presentation of labor's case in the great district east of Chicago. Without the Call almost any lie of capitalism would pass unchal- lenged, so far as the readers of English newspapers are concerned.

The Call is the key to labor's fight, the organ of its propaganda and agitation. It is one of labor's most vital possessions.

It sells for 5 cents on Sunday and 2 cents on week days. Its true value has never been computed and never can be.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES

1 Month. 3 Months. 6 Months. 1 Year. 2 Yeara

Week Day Only $0.50 $1.45 $2.00 $3.00 $5.00

Sunday Only 20 .60 1.00 2.00 3.50

Dally and Sunday 70 2.00 3.00 5.00 8.00

Clubs of three or more. Dally and Sunday. $3.50 per year.

Postal regulations require that in addition to the above rates mail subscribers in Manhattan and Bronx pay one cent a day to cover postage. Foreign postage extra.

Write for Magazine Clubbing rates and premium offers. Rates to dealers and agents on application.

The New York Call

444 PEARL STREET NEW YORK CITY

MR. ALFRED A. KNOPF'S NEW BOOKS

GREEN MANSIONS, By W. H. Hudson. With a striking introduction by John Galsworthy. A charming romance of the tropical forest by one of the very greatest living writers. $1.50

GREAT RUSSIA, By Charles Sarolea, author of "The Anglo- German Problem," etc. A brilliant and sympathetic survey of the country and its people. With maps. $1.25

THE MEMOIRS OF A PHYSICIAN, From the Russian of Vikenty Veressayev. A work (non-fiction) known the world over, which has placed its author in the first rank of Russian writers. $1.50

THE LITTLE DEMON, A novel from the Russian of Feodor Sologub. The authorized English version, with a special preface, of this writer's finest and most famous book. $1.50

THE OLD HOUSE, From the Russian of Feodor Sologub.

A novelette and ten other striking stories. $1-35

A HERO OF OUR TIAIE, A novel from the Russian of M. Y. Lermontov. A great romantic story that is an accepted classic. $1.40

SELF-GOVERNMENT IN RUSSIA, By Paul Vinogradoff.

A contribution by one of the greatest modern authorities. $1.00

OTHERS: AN: ANTHOLOGY OF THE NEW VERSE, Edited by Alfred Kreymborg. The work of almost fifty poets. $1.50

FOUR DIMENSIONAL VISTAS, By Claude Bragdon. For all who are interested in the Fourth Dimension and in Theosophy. $1.25

IN THE RUSSIAN RANKS, By John Morse (Englishman). Ten months' fighting in Poland. "The most notable piece of war literature the war has yet produced." — The London Times. $1.50

THE BUFFOON, By Louis U. Wilkinson. A striking novel

of contemporary life. $150

220 West FORTY-SECOND STREET, NEW YORK

The Rand Book Store

The Rand Book Store is another department of the Rand School which should receive the patronage and consideration <^ every comrade and radical in America.

For many years it was hard to get books on radical subjectst but we have outlived this stage and it is no more the question of getting books on economics or other subjects related to Socialism, but to be informed as to how many books come out, and which of them you ought to have in order to be up-to-date.

The Rand Book Store has the most complete stock of radical and Socialist books that can be had in the city, and a visit to our book store will convince you that we are right.

We are now issuing a new catalogue, which will have a conv plete list of those books (published up-to-date) that are of any Interest to radicals. This will be mailed upon request.

We have started deposit accounts with several comrades, and if you would like to deposit a certain sum with the school upon which you can draw to get books, we shall be glad to accommodate you.

Most of our comrades are book buyers. We urge upon their attention the fact that we make a specialty of radical books. Not only can you get what you want through us, but you have the satisfaction of knowing that the profits on your purchases go to the School and thereby help the furtherance of Socialist Education.

STAMPED BELOW

Sti

AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS

WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY OVERDUE.

f _.Y ■
Yol		md t ly oi
cou
Sen		emat
cou
For		ill t< s, tal
ftb WAR 29 1941 w
Wif .1 -rf'irtf-rt \ W
^'" ::{i 01953 Lii'
		jssor
		;sson
		snc Cil
R;
140
	LD21-100w-7.'39(402s)

YB 47(86'

340T?D0

''-V^-

^-^

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY