Uniforms

Peaceful, easy-going, democratic America, the America of "before the war," used to have a quiet contempt for uniforms. We tolerated them on railroad trains and in street cars, because they proved a convenience in helping us to identify the conductors. We rather liked to see them members of parading "jiners" and musical bands. They didn't set so well on bell hops, coachmen and chauffeurs; there they suggested to us an increase in snobbery. On policemen, firemen and mail carriers they gave no offence because these men were recognized as essential democrats in spite of them; and we knew that they had a good effect among "foreigners." We saw so few army and navy men that their uniforms didn't figure much in our thoughts. When we thought about them at all it was with a certain derision of the "gold braid."

We are learning nowadays that uniforms have psychological value. Some of us have sons who are wearing them for the first time. We see that the uniforms straighten them up, give them a new sense of responsibility, raise their ambitions and their standards. The benefits are not unmixed with evils. Men now and then get into uniforms who are inclined to overwork the authority which they symbolize and who offend us by vanity or by insolence. These however, are the exceptions, and we may feel confident that they will one day find their due levels. Upon the whole, uniforms in the national service make for a spirit of noblesse oblige, especially in the junior ranks. And so long as they are in the main obtainable on merit and without favoritism, they cannot be fairly called undemocratic.

Sir Douglas Haig may discard his shoulder straps and his ivory-hilted sword, because he has proved his rank and worth and needs no adventitious aid. Arrived great men in all societies are usually simple in their tastes. But novices in the profession of arms are keyed to higher striving by symbols of office. Be tolerant, therefore, and philosophical in the midst of uniforms. --Boston Advertiser.