Page:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu/910

Rh has purchased a summer camp near the Delaware Water Gap where members may spend their vacations. The Boston local has built a vacation house on Cape Cod. Bryn Mawr College held a two months' summer school for wage-earning women, which opened in June 1921. Students are supported on scholarships raised by trade unions and other groups of industrial women. It is probable that the education of working men and women will be carried on through coöperation with the extension work of the state universities. Teachers are now sent out from the universities to conduct classes where they have been organized in a community. Correspondence courses offer advantages to isolated students. There has been some public opposition to the labour colleges, where these have been suspected of radical propaganda. In 1918 the Department of Justice conducted raids on the Rand School and on the Proletarian University of Detroit.

The reconstruction programme of the American Federation of Labor included actual universal education, for all ages, in all communities, for which public schools and universities were to be developed. The programme stated: “It is also important that the industrial education which is being fostered and developed should have for its purpose not so much training for efficiency in industry as training for life in an industrial society.”

The American Labour Press.—The growth of the American labour press has been rapid. Each international and national union has its official organ, and the trade unions of most large cities publish their local labour papers. Well known are the Cleveland Citizen, the Denver Labor Bulletin and the Seattle Union Record. Some state federations of labour publish bulletins. The monthly American Federationist of the American Federation of Labor had a circulation (1920) of 100,000. Among the more important trade union papers are: The Bricklayer, Mason and Plasterer; Carpenter; Cigarmakers' Journal; Justice (Ladies' Garment Workers); Garment Worker; Machinists' Journal; Miners' Magazine; International Molders' Journal; Plumbers, Gas and Steam Fitters' Journal; Seamen's Journal; Shoe Workers' Journal; Textile Worker; Federal Employee, and the periodicals of the railway brotherhoods. The Chicago Federation of Labor publishes the New Majority (circulation 15,000), as national official organ of the Farmer-Labor party. Jewish workers have the Freie Arbeiter Stimme, New York, and Vorwaerts, of New York, daily circulation about 158,000. The Chicagoer Arbeiterzeitung is a German socialist paper. Zukunft, a Jewish socialist monthly paper, New York, has a circulation of 65,000. The Amalgamated Clothing Workers publish weekly papers in six languages: English, Yiddish, Italian, Polish, Bohemian and Lithuanian. The Industrial Workers of the World publish the One Big Union Monthly, and New Solidarity (circulation 10,000), both of Chicago. The Socialist Labor party publishes The Socialist and the Weekly People, New York, and the Industrial Worker, Seattle. The New York Call, a socialist daily, has a circulation of 21,800. Radical labour and socialist groups have published many short-lived periodicals of small circulation. During the war the Post Office Department revoked the second-class mail privileges of 25 papers, and held up one or more editions of a number of others.

—J. R. Commons, Trade Unionism and Labor Problems (Second Series, 1921); S. Gompers, Labor in Europe and America (1910); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review; American Labor Year Book (Rand School); Government Reports, especially that of Industrial Relations Commission, 1914-6. (J. R. Co.)

The U.S. army is subject to a system of military law which had its origin in, and was at first the same as that of, Great Britain. In the French and Indian Wars the colonists had fought side by side with British regulars and under the same rules and regulations. When they revolted they continued the system of military law with which they were already familiar. So little necessity for change existed that even the antiquated language of the British Articles of War was retained and some of it is still found in the American code. Passing over the earlier enactments of separate American colonies for the government of their respective contingents, such as those adopted in 1775 by the local Legislative Assemblies of Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire, we find that the Second Continental Congress in 1775 adopted practically the whole British Code of 1774 and furnished the foundation for the Articles of War as they have been known since then in the United States. Reënacted, with enlargements and modifications, in 1776 and amended in 1786, this code survived the adoption of the Federal Constitution and was continued in force by successive enactments until 1806.

In the United States, under the Constitution, the power of establishing military law rests with Congress. It was not, however, until 1806 that Congress concerned itself much with the

military code, the Articles of War. In that year the Articles were redrafted and reënacted though there were no material changes from the Articles as they had existed during the Revolution. Nor did the next large redraft in 1874 include any great changes. Occasionally an Act of Congress would make some change, sometimes, but more frequently not, specifically amending an Article of War. If the effect was that of an amendment the Article was considered as changed. Such Acts were those of 1890 and 1898 establishing the summary court and abolishing the field-officers court; and finally the summary court supplanted the two remaining inferior courts, the garrison court and the regimental court.

In 1910 the Judge-Advocate-General undertook the systematic and logical arrangement of the Articles of War. In 1916 he presented his project to Congress and it became a law. This draft presented no fundamental changes; it was rather a compilation made with the idea of bringing the code to date by incorporating late statutes, by deleting obsolete material and dropping quaint phraseology, and by systematizing the presentation. In short it was a logical up-to-date statement of the greater part of the military law of the nation, rendering it quickly accessible. Not all the statutes, customs or regulations governing rights and procedure were placed in the new code, but by it the President was authorized to prescribe by regulations the procedure, including modes of proof, in cases before military tribunals, so long as such regulations were not inconsistent with the new Articles; and all such prescribed regulations were required to be laid annually before Congress. Under this authority a new manual for courts martial was published by the authority of the President, and in this was embodied so much of custom and regulation that it became a complete exposition of the military laws.

This was the code in effect when the United States entered the World War, and by it its armies were governed during that conflict. Only one important addition was made before the Armistice, and that was by an executive order establishing in fuller detail the power of review of the records and proceedings of general courts martial. Shortly after the Armistice a bill was introduced in the Senate (Sen. 64, 66th Congress, 1st Sess.) which, if enacted, would have made many and vital changes in the administration of military law. Chief among the radical changes proposed were those of making enlisted men members of general courts martial; of establishing a civilian court of military appeals; and of injecting into the principal courts martial a new functionary with powers so extensive and of such a kind as to constitute him the administrator of discipline. At the time the Senate was considering this bill a board of officers was convened by the War Department to recommend any changes it believed to be necessary in the Articles of War and in the methods of procedure which then obtained in the administration of military justice. After considering numerous recommendations from the army at large the board submitted a detailed report accompanied by a redraft of the Articles of War.

At the same time General Crowder, the Judge-Advocate-General, redrafted the Articles of War upon lines that he thought advisable in view of the experience gained during the war. The draft prepared by him was accepted by Congress with little change and became a law June 4 1920, though most of its provisions did not go into effect until six months later. The radical views as expressed in the Senate bill were rejected and the administration of military discipline was left to the military authorities.

This new code contains 122 Articles. In 85 Articles there are no changes except the formal variations made necessary by the creation of grades before unknown, such as warrant officers and nurses, and other analogous alterations. This leaves 37 Articles, a little more than one-fourth, in which there have been substantial changes. Many of these, however, are only statutory enactments of rules already established by administrative interpretation, orders, or customs of the service. Only about 20 Articles contain really new matter and of these it will be necessary to consider here only the more important.

Probably the most important of the changes is that effected by Article 50½ which creates a Board of Review in the office of