Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Certain phases of the discussion of the army appropriation bill in the House were challenged recently on the ground that they were not directed at the particular paragraphs under consideration at the moment. While the point of order may have been well applied, the side issues were of greater importance than the routine features of the bill. This was especially true of the discussion of reasons why enlistment in the regular army fails to appeal to the average American youth, as also of the propriety of providing greater pay for the man who enlists in the hour of his country's need, leaving behind those depending upon him for support.

However difficult of solution these problems may be, they should be looked in the face and not sidestepped. When it comes to the highest forms of benevolence, not to say charity, it has frequently been the strange part of Congress to begin as far away from home as possible. The successful prosecution of the war with Spain found a generous nation paying a good round sum to the loser for the conquered Philippines, an act to which the partisans of the party now in power point with pride and hold up as an earnest of righteous after dealing should trouble ensue south of the border.

But if such conduct is to mark our dealings with the enemy, why should not equal millions be provided for our own?

Already the executive committee of the permanent blind relief war fund, which has done so much for those rendered sightless in the European strife, has voted that if war is declared between the United States and Mexico there will be established an American branch of the fund. Says Miss Helen Keller: "If the worst comes, it will be a noble work for this fund to care for the United States soldiers who are blinded. I shall do all I can."

Brave and touching words! Cannot the chosen representatives of the most powerful and most generous people in the world at least listen to a discussion of the subject without interposing a point of order?