622

head of the Government is not selected in so direct a manner.

All three candidates for the Presidency recognize the existence of widespread discontent with social conditions, and their diagnosis is not essentially different. But, whereas President Taft considers that the remedies can be found without materially modifying existing institutions, the Democrats and Progressives demand more thoroughgoing change. Legislation, says President Taft, is necessary to secure for the poor equality of opportunity with the rich, and to obtain this it is necessary to restrict in some respects the power of the plutocracy. But while he is prepared to put forward industrial and social legislation of various kinds, and desires to obtain control over business by incorporating the trusts under a federal law, he is not prepared to make any sort of breach in the Tariff which the Democrats rightly recognize as the chief source of high prices, and of the unequal distribution of wealth. President Taft's utterances on the Tariff are, in fact, more orthodox in the full Protectionist sense than in his last campaign before his unfortunate experience with the Payne-Aldrich Tariff. Colonel Roosevelt, in his desire to allay the suspicion of the business world, has also lacked the courage to break with the Protectionist doctrine of the "scientific tariff," which is that import duties should be equal to the difference in the cost of production within the United States and in foreign countries. This theory can, of course, be used to drive up prices within a tariff barrier to an almost indefinite extent. Any new industry, however unsuitable, can be started and maintained behind such a tariff. No industry should, on this theory, be subjected to the refining and stimulating influence of foreign competition, and as one commodity after another is raised in price above

the level of the world market increased wages have to be paid, cost of production goes up, and the tariff wall has to be raised still higher in order to keep out the competition of cheaper goods from abroad. A visitor from Mars, ignorant of the course of the world's industrial history, would probably say that of all countries in the world the United States is one which needs no artificial protection by means of tariffs, because of its unrivalled natural resources, the great extent of its home market, and the commercial and industrial ability of its people, with their talent for invention and mechanical science. But, as we all know, America has reached a state of high protection, and her business has been organized on the basis of prices considerably above the level of world markets. And it is, therefore, essential that any breach in her protective system must be made with caution. Hence, while the Democratic candidate has purged his programme from all talk of so-called scientific tariffs, and stands for revision "unhesitatingly and steadily downward," the changes must be made carefully, and with due regard to business needs. Such a policy calls for very great steadfastness of purpose, and an ability to resist the pressure of vested interests, combined with a thorough understanding of economic problems. But in our opinion it is the only policy which offers the least hope of successfully dealing with the high cost of living.

Colonel Roosevelt has elaborated a policy of social reform which is to include a minimum wage in all important industries, mine and factory legislation with a view to establishing adequate standards of sanitation and safety, compensation for accidents and death, and for industrial diseases, oldage pensions, limitation of the hours of labor (and, in particular, the introduction of the eight-hour three-shift

system in industries such as the iron trade, where production has necessarily to be continuous), one day's rest in seven, control of housing conditions, and an industrial insurance scheme along the lines recently adopted in Great Britain. While in many respects this pragramme is an attempt to apply the standards of industrial regulation which for some time past have successfully been enforced in this country, Germany, and to a less extent in other Continental countries, it is clear that Mr. Roosevelt is up against the fundamental difficulties of the American Constitution. Regulations which are suitable to the high-grade industries of the North-Eastern States would be entirely out of place if applied to the negro and low-caste white population of the Southern States, or to the conditions in Western America. And the question to be solved is whether such conditions are properly to be determined by federal action, or are to be left, as at present, to the individual States. Colonel Roosevelt is, in fact, proposing to legislate on economic matters, not for a nation, but for a continent which includes many varied types of economic life, and his programme consequently implies a radical revision of the Constitution in the direction of increasing the power of the Federal Government.

In addition to the question of the Tariff, the Democrats propose some measure of currency reform, but while we are told that the Aldrich plan is unsatisfactory, no alternative is indi

The Economist.

cated. As regards the trust problem, we are told that big business is dangerous, not because it is big, but because it is fostered by privilege. Hence, privilege must be removed with caution and prudence. Both civil and criminal punishment is necessary to eradicate the evils that have grown up under the Tariff and other legal favoritism. Natural resources need to be "conserved," the merchant marine and foreign trade developed, and the best possible use made of the Panama Canal. On some of these points Colonel Roosevelt is more explicit than the Democratic candidate, and, in particular, he declares that while Panama Canal tolls on deep-water commerce should be uniform to all nations, American coastwise vessels should pass through the canal free. As a matter of fact, the Senate have just decided to adopt this policy with regard to the canal, but by so doing have come into collision with the treaty rights of this country. More will be heard of this question in the autumn.

The lost "Book of the Wars of the Lord" is only once referred to in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is supposed by scholars that it was a collection of war songs. If so there is no reason to sup

pose that the whole of its contents would be new to us even if it were found. The Hebrew Scripture is full of the fierce eloquence of war. The spirit of fierceness confused itself at times

with the religious fervor of the Jews and was ascribed to Jehovah Himself. "The Lord is a man of war," they said; and modern readers can only shrink from the imagery employed by the poets who conceived of a tribal God capable of those savage storms of emotion which attack all nations, perhaps all men, in the wild days of their youth. "I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment, I will render vengeance to mine enemies and will reward them that hate me. I will make mine arrows drunk with blood." It is horrible, but it is splendid. We seem to hear the rattle of war as Scott heard it and as Isaiah heard it "when the blast of the terrible ones is as a storm against the wall." What do the words sound like in the Hebrew, one wonders. How much of their poetry is due to the period of their translation? Not very much, we imagine. It must be great poetry, indeed, which can inspire such a rendering. "The thunder of the captains and the shouting" reached the ears of the Elizabethans, and many a young Puritan longing for adventure must have felt the thrill that disturbed the young men of Israel "at the time that kings go out to battle." In the quiet church we can imagine an English boy listening entranced to the reader, and saying over to himself through a long sermon, "I cannot hold my peace because thou hast heard o my soul! the sound of the trumpet and the alarm of war." Perhaps finer words with a more Puritan ring would strike on his ear as his mind returned for a moment to listen to his pastor discoursing from the Old Testament: "When he had consulted with the people he appointed singers unto the Lord that should praise the beauty of holiness as they went out before the army."

If we set David aside there is no

happy warrior to be found in Scripture -no one whom every man at arms would wish to be. David had the power to attract love and command forgiveness; he was sometimes clement and he was seldom cruel. He is a hero, but, as he said of himself, he was "a man of blood" no less than a man at arms, and it is plain that he did not think himself worthy to build the Temple. Nothing became David like his humility, but it was not without cause. Setting, as we have said, David aside, acts of martial magnanimity are far to seek in the Bible. The most conspicuous instance suggests that a higher ideal existed than found any frequent illustration in practice. "My Father, shall I smite them, shall I smite them?” said the young man to the prophet. "And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them. Wouldst thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat, drink, and go to their master." As a rule when we read of the warriors who "left nothing that breathed," we are inclined to say with Jacob: "Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel," and, again: "Instruments of cruelty are in their habitations, O my soul; come not thou into their secret."

Later on the prophets took a larger view of war. The far-sighted Isaiah caught glimpses of the modern imperial spirit. "I have set thee this day over the nations and over the kingdoms to blot out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build and to plant." More than a glimpse also, perhaps, of the spirit which yearns for peace. Through defeat the Jews learned pity. Could the desolation of a conquered city be better depicted than in the following lines?-"Her gates are sunk into the ground; he hath destroyed and broken her bars; her king and her princes are among the Gentiles. The

law is no more." We see the deep distress of Jerusalem. The children, we read, "swoon in the streets of her. They say to their mothers, Where is corn and wine? They swooned as the wounded in the streets of their city when their soul was poured out into their mother's bosom." But Isaiah, who dreamed of the Prince of Peace and of the mountains where nothing can hurt or destroy, put the man at arms first in his list of great men when he describes "the stay and the staff" of a nation: "The mighty man and the man of war, the judge and the prophet, and the prudent and the ancient, the captains of fifty and the honorable man, and the counsellor and the cunning artificer and the eloquent orator." The orator last! Where would Isaiah have placed "the man with the ink-horn"? Ezekiel put him very high.

There is a curious passage in the Book of Chronicles which describes the introduction by Uzziah of instruments of destruction more complicated and effective than any which preceded them: "He made in Jerusalem engines invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks to shoot arrows and great stones withal, and his name spread far abroad, for he was marvellously helped till he was strong. But when he was strong his heart was lifted up to his destruction." How much is suggested in this passage! Perhaps if we found "the Book of the Wars of the Lord" we should know more of Uzziah, his heart and his engines.

A good many of the most oftenquoted passages of Scripture having reference to war are put into the The Spectator.

mouths of women. "By strength shall no man prevail" was said, according to the chronicler, by Hannah. "They that stumbled are girded with strength" is her saying also. "The stars in their courses fought again Sisera" is part of the Song of Deborah, together with the bitter curses pronounced against the tribes who shirked the wars of the Lord who remained in ships, abode in the breaches, or simply came not. Cowards were rare in early times, but the famous opportunity allowed by the law for every man who distrusted his nerve to save himself shows that they were not unknown. All men over twenty were bound to fight-the exceptions are well known. We apologize for quoting the last exception for the benefit of any one who has forgotten it. "What man is there that is fearful and faint-hearted? Let him go and return unto his house, lest his brethren's heart faint as well as his heart." A strange mixture of the systems of compulsory and voluntary service truly! Proclaim yourself a coward and take your discharge is what the words amount to.

When all is said Hannah was right. It was not by strength that the Jews prevailed. One new fragment of the Gospel, did it contain but one sentence of counsel, warning, or benediction, would be of greater value than the whole book of the wars of Jehovah. They belong to the far past. "Where is the fury of the oppressor" now? Even "Pharaoh King of Egypt is but a noise." The prophets knew it would be so. "What do these feeble Jews?" asked their oppressors. The history of the Western world is the only adequate reply.

LIVING AGE. VOL. LVI. 2952