by Richard van Pelt, WWI Correspondent

On the front page of the Capital Journal are reports of the celebration of the Kaiser’s 56th birthday:

Kaiser Celebrates 56th Birthday By Freeing Many Military Prisoners

In celebration of his 56th birthday, the German emperor granted a general amnesty, freeing hundreds of persons under punishment for breaking the military and disciplinary regulations. He also issued a decree annulling all legal proceedings and investigations growing out of the ads of persons charged with evading the call to arms issued last August.

HEAPS OF DEAD IS ARMY’S BIRTHDAY PRESENT TO KAISER
Determined Night Attack Is Inspired By Presence of Emperor
FRENCH DRIVEN OUT OF TRENCHES NEAR CRAONNE
Germans Hold Celebration and Song Service In Captured Trenches

Heaps of dead, the victims of reckless, bloody charges against the trenches of the allies, were the German army’s birthday present to the kaiser today.

Inspired by the presence of the emperor the German troops hurled themselves against the French and English positions in a series of night attacks along a line from the North sea to Rheims. Excepting near Craonne, where the French were driven out of their trenches, these assaults were thrown back with loss, according to statements by officials at headquarters today.

An editorial in the Capital Journal considers this country’s preparedness for war in the light of events in Europe:

ARMY AND NAVY INCREASE

The Literary Digest has made a poll of the newspaper editors of the United States on the question of the proposed navy and army increases. The result is interesting, and in many respects instructive, as the following summary will show:

“One effect of Europe’s war is to raise the question of our preparedness in case war should come to us. The topic is the subject of discussion in congress, in the press, and in private conversation from coast to coast. Without leaning to one side or the other of the debate, we have sought as a representative verdict the opinion of upward of four hundred editors in all parts of the country. We have asked them three definite questions- namely, whether they believe our national defenses are adequate; whether they favor a stronger standing army; and whether they favor a stronger navy. As to our defenses, 272 say that our defenses are inadequate

[sic], while 119 think them inadequate. Favoring a stronger standing army are 240 as against 158 opposing it. The vote for a stronger navy is even more markedly affirmative, being 285 in favor to109 against.

“Because it is obvious that the region in which an editor lives must influence his judgement in some degree, we have classified these expressions according to the natural divisions of states on the Atlantic or Pacific sea slope and states of the inland section. It will be found, perhaps, that in the states having a shore exposure the demand for a stronger army, and especially for a stronger navy, is beyond dispute. At the same time, it will be noted that in the interior, opinion is more evenly divided. Few if any, of those in favor of “preparedness,” it would be remarked, show symptoms of militaristic fever. In fact, much argument is heard from all sides against the malady. The policy of President Wilson, of Secretary of War Garrison, and of Secretary of the Navy Daniels outlines our true course, say some editors; while others contend that we have nothing to worry about because when this war is over Europe won’t have any more fight left in her for years to come.

“The Philadelphia Inquirer is unqualified in its judgment that our defenses are inadequate and that we need a stronger army and navy; while the Boston Advertiser also favors a sufficient defense strength for “a national policy of national safety.” This journal does not profess to say “how or to what extent the army and navy should be enlarged,” but insists that “we want our national safety to be assured and certain.” Among other journals of similar opinion are the Boston Transcript and Evening Record, Lowell Courier-Citizen, Providence Journal and Tribune, New Haven Times-Leader, Buffalo News, Syracuse Post-Standard, New York Herald, Times, Tribune, Evening Mail, American, Washington Post, Star, Herald, and Times, Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle, and Savannah News.

Many editorial observers in various sections agree with the Buffalo times when it recommends the upbuilding of the National Guard as the close adjunct of the regular army. Thus the Waycross (Ga.) Journal-Herald says: “We believe in making the National Guard the strongest military reserve in the world,” and the Staunton (Va.) Leader, suggesting 100,000 men for the standing army, says that these combined with “an efficient militia with federal pay. . . . will solve the problem of our adequate land force” The figure of 100,000 regulars is indorsed also by the Bristol (Va.) Herald-Courier, which adds that “if the navy is second only to England’s, it is strong enough.” Among caustic critics of our national defenses are the Grafton (W. Va.) Sentinel, which says that “we have a fourth-rate navy and a no-rate army,” and the Moundsville (W. Va.) Echo, which declares that our “entire defense department naturally needs reorganizing to meet needs as European war makes apparent.” In this connection it is of interest to learn from the Hampton (Va.) Monitor, which argues for an increased army and navy, the “Bryan’s universal peace is beautiful – but labored nothingness. We’ve got to look facts and human motives straight in the face.”

“Similar in tone is the warning of the Randolph (Vt.) Herald and News, which bids us “get ready for trouble when it comes – it surely will”; and this journal advises a “gradual increase” of our naval strength and a “more general limited compulsory service in military training.” Our national defenses are adequate “for probabilities,” says the Newport (R.I.) Daily News, but not for “possibilities,” and although the Burlington (Vt.) Free Press believes that “if any general move for limiting armaments is undertaken we will want to help such a movement,: still it holds that “submarines and better coast defenses seem to be a pressing need.” Moreover this journal advises against building any more dreadnoughts “till the war in Europe is over and its lessons learned.”