Admiral Magruder's quarrel with the Secretary of the Navy brings to the public mind the similar difficulties of General Mitchell with the War Department. Both were crusaders for reform; both, by appealing their cases to the public, aroused the ire of their superiors; but there the resemblance ends. Mitchell advocated larger expenditures, and accused the Government of stinting the allowance for an adequate air delense: Magruder is on the side of economy, and accuses the authorities of inefficient use of the funds appropriated.

General Mitchell was demoted as an open punishment and Admiral Magruder's case, although viewed by Secretary Wilbur as not so much a punitive measure as a shifting of responsibility, comes under the same category. The rominal discrepancies, arising from the differences between Mr. Wilbur's and the Admiral's points of view are, however, inessential; the chief idea is that General Mitchell, by keeping up the fight tried to arouse public interest in a matter of vital public concern, until the Government at length took some notice of the situation. If Admiral Magruder's present difficulties have a similar result he will be more than justified.

In both cases it is a question of seeds falling on stones and thorny ground of vital information unheeded by the adamant ears of the authorities, or directed at the public, after a brief and spectacular growth of interest, as in the case of General Mitchell, being choked by the thistles of indifference.

Possibly there will be an eventual friction brought about by the personal crusades of these men, of Mitchell and Magruder. Already certain of Mitchell's ideas are being looked upon with other than scorn and contempt; the fate of Magruder's cause lies with the discretion of the Navy Department whose attitude is that the king and the king's henchmen can do no wrong.