POLITICS AND THE WAR

It is the experience of the past years that politics and an effective direction of war cannot be combined. As surely as favoritism can never be the basis of military organization, partisanship has no place in the war councils of any nation. In recognizing this fact, England and France have established their coalition cabinets and have made merit the determining factor in all appointments to office. Since a year ago last April, the question of politics in our national Government has been foremost in the public mind. Leaders of Congress and the press have not been slow to lay charges of partisanship at the administration's door. It is under such conditions that the events of the last weeks have a special significance. The appointment of Schwab, Ryan, and finally Hughes to positions of importance opens a new chapter in executive policy.

The opponents of the administration have found cause for much criticism is the work of many high office-holders. A great part of it has been only too well justified. Republicans and Democrats alike, however, must admit that the President has led the country in all fairness and to the best of his ability since we entered the war. The task of organizing a great military machine is in any case great; in a country possessing no machinery for its accomplishment it is of tremendous difficulty. There have been many mistakes in the war's prosecution, and perhaps not a few of them have been due to partisan causes. But the bulk of the testimony points to an honest endeavor at a fair administration. Appointments of men of the opposite party may be a spectacular appeal to the electorate. Fairmindedness, however, demands recognition for a policy which lays partisanship aside and which substitutes a real consideration for the needs and obligations of the time. Let us hope that the appointment of so able a man as Mr. Hughes will be but the forerunner of official recognition of many other national leaders who heretofore have remained in civil life.