use of stamps were laid upon patent and proprietary medicines and toilet articles, chewing gum, and wines; and an excise tax was imposed upon firms engaged in refining sugar or petroleum. A novelty in federal finance was a tax on legacies ranging from three-quarters of one per cent on direct heirs to five per cent on distant relatives and strangers, with a progressive increase in the rates as the estates increased in size, to a maximum of fifteen per cent." 1 The actual direction of war is obviously difficult to describe. The power of direction is, of course, vested in the President; but the extent to which he may use it to control not only the general but the minute movements of the army and navy depends upon many things: the character of the theatre of war, the facility of communication, the confidence of the President in his own military ability, and the regard which he has for the abilities of the officers immediately under his command. He could, of course, take the field himself if he saw fit. During the Spanish-American War, President McKinley, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy sat together in what is known as the War Room at the White House, which was connected with the scenes of action by the most modern means of communication; and from time to time they sent out general instructions, and detailed orders to commanding officers.2 We may say, therefore, that the President and his immediate advisers in Washington sketch the general plans of campaign; supervise their execution; make changes and issue new directions from time to time, always coöperating with the officers at the front, trusting more or less to their use of discretion amid the exigencies of battle. Under the law establishing the General Staff, described above, the President will now have the advice of an expert body closely in touch with the army and at the same time initiated in the practical problems of civil administration connected with the actual employment of the army. 3 The Rights of Citizens in Time of War The rights of the enemy in time of war are deduced, of course, from the principles of international law; but the rights of Ameri1 Dewey, Financial History of the United States, p. 466. "See Readings, p. 313. 3 For actual illustrations, see Readings, pp. 315 ff. can citizens must be determined according to the Constitution of the United States. During the Civil War a serious problem arose as to the extent of the power of the President as commander-inchief over the persons and property of American citizens, not only near the seat of war, but even at a great distance. Has the President the right to arrest citizens in loyal states on the charge of giving aid or comfort to the enemy of the United States? Can he suspend, without the sanction of Congress, the writ of habeas corpus as to persons under military arrest, thus preventing them from carrying their cases into the ordinary civil tribunals? Are persons so held under military arrest entitled to jury trial? These and many similar questions were raised, and bitter feeling was manifested against President Lincoln, in many quarters, for what was regarded as high-handed and arbitrary action in arresting, by military force, large numbers of men throughout the North who were suspected of giving aid and encouragement to the Confederacy. To those who complained against this policy, President Lincoln responded: "Thoroughly imbued with a reverence for the guaranteed rights of individuals, I was slow to adopt the strong measures which by degrees I have been forced to regard as being within the exceptions of the Constitution and as indispensable to the public safety. Nothing is better known to history than that courts of justice are utterly incompetent to such cases. Civil courts are organized chiefly for trials of individuals, or at most a few individuals acting in concert and this in quiet times and on charges of crimes well defined in the law. . . . He who dissuades one man from volunteering, or induces one soldier to desert, weakens the Union cause as much as he who kills a Union soldier in battle. Yet this dissuasion or inducement may be so conducted as to be no defined crime of which any civil court would take cognizance." i The question as to the extent of the President's war power over American citizens was brought before the Supreme Court in the case of Ex parte Milligan, and it was held that, in time of civil war when courts are actually closed by foreign invasion and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, the military authority has the right to rule by martial law until the 1 Nicolay and Hay, Complete Works of A. Lincoln, Vol. VIII, pp. 303, 309. 24 Wallace, 2. laws can have their free course again. But, continued the Court, as the necessity creates the rule, so it limits the duration martial rule can never be maintained where the courts are open and in the proper and undisturbed exercise of their jurisdiction, and it is confined to the locality of actual war. The doctrine thus announced by the Court is largely an academic one, for the President, having possession of the military power, can readily close the courts in any district and thus disturb "the free course of law"; and as a matter of fact, in time of war, a practically absolute power must be vested in the commander-in-chief. The Pension System No country in the world has been more liberal in the provision of pensions for soldiers and sailors and those dependent upon them than the United States. A pension system was established as early as 1776. Following every war there is a new pension law, or rather a series of pension laws, making provision for those who have served their country; and payments for previous services are constantly being made more liberal. In 1905, the roll of pensioners reached 1,004,195, the largest in the history of our country; and on June 30, 1908, the number stood at 951,867. By the act of March 4, 1907, Congress appropriated $145,000,000 for pensions, and this was supplemented about a year later by a deficiency appropriation of $10,000,000 more. The total amount actually disbursed in pensions for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1908, was over $153,000,000. It is not only the soldiers who have seen actual service that are pensioned. Many widows, children under the age of sixteen years, and helpless minors are provided for, and state and national homes are established for the disabled and indigent. It was not until November 11, 1906, that the last surviving widow pensioner of the Revolutionary War died and two daughters of soldiers in that war were still on the roll in 1908. The last pensioned soldier of the War of 1812 died in 1905, but the roll of that war still contains over 400 widows. On June 30, 1908, there were 620,985 survivors of the Civil War on the pension roll. The administration of the pensions is in charge of a commissioner in the Department of the Interior, The Cost of War1 There is a strong tradition in the United States that we are preeminently a peaceful people giving little attention to warlike preparations; and we generally point with pity to the nations of Europe staggering under their enormous military burdens. It is interesting to note, however, that on comparing the total receipts of Great Britain, Germany, France, and the United States with their total expenditures for the maintenance of military establishments there is relatively little difference. During the fiscal year 1908, the United States spent for army, navy, and fortifications no less than $204,122,855.57, or 36.5 per cent of the total revenue, exclusive of postal receipts (because the revenues and expenditures in that department constitute a balanced account). During the same year also we spent $180,678,204, or about 31 per cent of our total revenue for pensions, interest,3 and other charges incurred by past wars. Taking the daily statement issued by the Treasury Department on April 30, 1909, we find an expenditure of 41 per cent of all the revenues of the fiscal year up to that day for the army, navy, and fortifications- that is, in preparation for war and 31 per cent of all the revenue on account of past wars, making a total expenditure of 72 per cent of all the federal revenues thus collected, either on account of past wars or in preparation for war. -- "The fact," exclaims Mr. Tawney, chairman of the committee of appropriations in the House, "that we are expending, during this fiscal year, 72 per cent of our aggregate revenue in preparing for war and on account of past wars, leaving only 28 per cent of our revenue available to meet all other governmental expenditures, including internal improvements, the erection of public buildings, the improvement of rivers and harbors, and the conservation of our natural resources, is to my mind appalling. It should arrest the attention of the American people and not only cause them to demand a decrease in these unnecessary war expenditures, but also prompt them to aid in every way possible in the creation of a public sentiment that would favor the organization of an international federation whose decisions and action in the 'For the American theory of national defence, Readings, p. 320. the modern peace movement, above, p. 339. 2 For Congressional Record, Vol. XL, part 8, p. 7928; Reinsch, Readings, p. 313. peaceful settlement of controversies between nations would be recognized and accepted as the final determination thereof. If this were done it would not necessarily mean the entire abandonment of armies and navies, but it would so far remove the possibility of international wars as to make unnecessary the expenditure of the stupendous sums which are now being collected from the people in the form of taxes and expended for the purpose of maintaining armed peace. The money expended for this purpose is not the only measure of the cost of armed peace. Think for a moment of what the American people have lost during the past eight years, in consequence of the increased expenditure of more than a billion dollars during that time for the purpose of preparing for war in order that war may be prevented." It is important to note that we are not only spending threefourths of our total revenue in the payment for past wars and for warlike preparations, but also that there is a strong tendency to increase the relative amount voted for military purposes. Under the second adminstration of President Roosevelt, the per capita appropriation for the army was $3.66, more than two and a half times the amount appropriated under Mr. Cleveland's administration. Under Mr. Roosevelt, the naval appropriations, measured in relation to the population, were three times as great as under Mr. Cleveland; and at the same time there was an increase of fifty per cent in the expenditure for fortifications. This increase in appropriations for military purposes has been especially rapid since the Spanish War. The average annual army appropriations for the eight years just preceding the Spanish War amounted to $24,000,000; for each of the eight years ending in the fiscal year of 1910, the average amount totals the enormous sum of $83,000,000. During this same period the annual average appropriations for the navy have risen from $27,500,000 to more than $102,400,000. In defence of this rapid increase in expenditures for warlike preparations, it is urged that special precautions must be taken to defend our new insular possessions and to protect our world-wide commerce. It is also contended that as long as the great nations of Europe, with whom we are now in open coramercial competition in the world's markets, steadily increase their military and naval expenditures we cannot allow our army and navy to fall behind. In his message of December 3, 1907, President Roosevelt declared that inasmuch as the Hague conference had failed to take up the |